Republicans today rant about President Biden’s “socialist agenda,” trying to scare ignorant people into fear of a humane government. None of the Trumpers I know are willing to give up their Social Security or Medicare, both of which are forms of government socialism.
Max Boot, who was previously a conservative columnist for the Washington Post, explains in this column that President Biden is trying to catch up with the policies of other modern democracies that provide for such things as health care and education. Republicans prefer a society that is deeply inequitable, where people living in poverty are left to fend for themselves with minimal and inadequate basic human services.
Boot writes:
Republicans accuse President Biden of pursuing a radical agenda that will turn the United States into a failed socialist state. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), for example, tweeted a link to a 1974 article about day care in the Soviet Union and wrote ominously: “You know who else liked universal day care.”
It’s true that Biden is proposing a considerable amount of new spending that could reignite inflation: He wants $2.3 trillion for infrastructure and $1.8 trillion for child care, family leave and education. That’s on top of the $1.9 trillion in stimulus spending that was already passed. But those investments won’t turn us into North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or the Soviet Union — all countries with government ownership of industry. They will simply bring us a little closer to the standard set by other wealthy industrialized democracies — our international peer group.
Many conservatives, of course, seem to think that, as an “exceptional” nation, we have nothing to learn from any other country. But that is hubris speaking. The coronavirus pandemic should have shattered illusions about U.S. omnipotence that not even our rapid vaccination campaign can undo. While other nations such as Brazil and India have much larger outbreaks today, the United States still has more verified covid-19 deaths (more than 576,000) than any other country. The United States remains a leader in some important areas, including our high-tech industry, our financial industry, our universities and our armed forces. But by most indexes we are an embarrassing international laggard.
The Commonwealth Fund notes that the United States spends nearly twice as much on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product than do other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Yet, compared with our peers, we have lower life expectancy, higher suicide rates, higher levels of obesity, higher rates of chronic diseases and higher rates of avoidable deaths. It’s no coincidence that the United States, alone among advanced industrialized countries, does not have universal health care. The United States is also alone among OECD nations in not having universal paid family leave.
The Economic Policy Institute notes that income inequality in the United States has been worsening for years: “From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%. … In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.” Our level of income inequality is now closer to that of developing countries in Africa and Latin American than to our European allies.
In other respects we are simply mediocre. The OECD reports that the minimum wage in the United States is the 15th highest in the world — well behind countries such as Germany and South Korea. The World Economic Forum rates U.S. infrastructure 13th in the world (Singapore is No. 1). The OECD found in 2018 that in an international test of 15-year-olds, the U.S. ranked 11th out of 79 countries in science and 30th in math.
We do lead in some areas. The United States has the world’s highest incarceration rate (higher than in Turkmenistan and Cuba!), the world’s highest rate of civilian gun ownership and the highest rate of violent gun deaths among other advanced industrialized democracies (more than eight times higher than Canada’s).
While we spend more on prisons than other countries, we spend less on social services. The U.S. government’s share of GDP (37.8 percent) is considerably lower than in most other OECD countries (in France it’s 55.6 percent). Yet the United States is hardly a free-market paradise: The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom ranks the United States No. 20, far behind countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Denmark that have more robust welfare states.
Yes, it’s possible to combine a vibrant free market with generous social welfare spending. In fact, that’s the right formula for a more satisfied and stable society. In the OECD quality-of-life rankings — which include everything from housing to work-life balance — the United States ranks an unimpressive 10th. The leaders are Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada and Denmark — again, all emphatically capitalist countries whose governments spend a higher share of GDP than we do.
Biden’s plans, even if fully implemented, won’t cause the United States to leap to the front of the pack in quality-of-life rankings. He doesn’t have the support in Congress to address our rampant gun crime with tougher licensing for handguns and a ban on assault rifles (as occurred in Australia and New Zealand). He is not even trying to institute universal medical care — something that every other wealthy country already has — because to do so would invite the same Republican protests against “socialized medicine” that greeted the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
At most, with proposals such as federally subsidized child care, elder care, family leave and pre-K education — financed with modest tax increases on corporations and wealthy individuals — Biden is merely moving us a bit closer to the kinds of government services that other wealthy, industrialized democracies already take for granted. We will remain on the smaller-government, lower-tax end of the spectrum, but we will have a slightly stronger social safety net than we had before. That’s far from radical. It’s simply sensible.
In what way is Biden “trying to … provide for such things as health care…”? He has been vocally anti-M4A from the beginning. M4A is the only way to provide universal healthcare to all people. Every other system involves people having to pay, which by definition will leave out those who can’t afford.
And even if you think the public option is somehow a substitute, Biden isn’t going to do that either – he’s already made that clear. His only solution is the exact same solution that all administrations – both Republican and Democrat – have proposed for decades: give more money to private health insurance companies. If you support either party, you are essentially supporting the idea that it’s okay that some people will die of treatable medical conditions because they can’t afford treatment. Personally, I find that repulsive, but you do you.
BTW, why do we only worry about what things cost when it comes to things that benefit the people rather than corporations? Does anyone ever worry about how Biden plans to pay for his record-high military budget (must less the much larger off-budget costs, like the trillions that Halliburton and other contractors have “lost”)? Does anyone worry about how much bailing out corporations every few years costs? Of course not and that’s because money isn’t real – the federal government can (and does) print it whenever they want it. It’s just that they only want it when it benefits the rich and connected few, not the many who are suffering in non-living wage jobs with no healthcare mired in debt. Read Stephanie Kelton’s THE DEFICIT MYTH.
Your points are all well worth hearing and considering. However, the implicit equating of Democrats and Republicans is untrue, counterproductive, and dangerous.
I believe what has Republicans rankled is not the idea of Medicare for all, but that Biden is presenting his infrastructure plan and discussing paying for it by raising taxes on top income earners and corporations, especially on investment income, and beefing up the IRS to go after big corporate cheaters. Taxes on the rich could be the highest in many decades. I am thrilled to see the plan is alive and Biden is putting the weight of his office behind it.
Mitch McConnell is trying to convince swing Senators to look out for themselves and their mansions instead of looking out for the voters in their states. The word ‘socialists’ means nothing; it is merely dog whistle code interchangeable with ‘Jews’.
You are likely correct leftcoastteacher. However, the wining by any means necessary has at its foundation for many GOP, their expressed belief that God wants them to do what they are doing.
The pro-birth author of an op-ed in a Nevada paper, likely a tribalist, wrote about a Democratic politician who was pro-choice, “Given the willingness of the (politician) to attack his own church and his fellow congregants for political gain, it’s scary to think about what else he’d be willing to do to us.”
Lets say I agree with most of your points and I do. Where do the American people fit into this equation. We had a primary where both candidates who were in the forefront of progressive legislation from M4all to free State college education lost and they lost in a dramatic manner.
If you want M4all the fastest path to achieve it would be for the Republican Court to kill ACA . The employer provided healthcare system would have collapsed in the Great Recession without the mandate that prevented larger employers from shifting more and more costs to their employees . The ACA mandate prevented market forces from decimating the employer based system by requiring employers to provide that insurance putting them all on equal footing with their competitors. Just look at the demise of the defined benefit pension system where there was no mandate, if you need an example.
“The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority.” Zinn
And it doesn’t hurt that much of that minority is of a different color . Nor that they are able to portray inequality as an individual failure . Thus forcing White people who have not succeeded to confront their own failures or dismiss their needs.
There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Congress would pass Medicare for All, if Biden proposed it. FDR and LBJ were able enact bold legislation because they had large Democratic majorities in Congress. Biden has a razor-thin edge in both Houses, which he could lose in 2022. Joe Manchin and Krysten Synema are constantly threatening to defect. Biden is doing an amazing job so far—with the exception of education, which remains in thrall to the Bush-Obama agenda. .
Joel, I don’t understand your reasoning. Larger employers began shifting health costs to employees at a rapid clip starting early in the ‘80’s during mfg decline/ offshoring. The pace slowed in the ‘90’s, but continued. Every single year we paid more for less coverage. Those plans would have imploded w/o ACA in the great recession? No. They would have just shifted us into higher-deductible plans ever closer to catastrophic-coverage-only at a faster rate.
dianeravitch
My main point is that the American people vote for Republicans who drag out the red scare every time . . They voted for the Democratic candidate who did not promise M4all.
But the Democrats have 2 choices go big or go home.. A populist right wing racist movement will not be defeated by pretty speeches and promises.
Our elections are won on the margins . You may not convince one fascist Trumpanzee to vote Democratic. The object is to turn out your supporters and get those who are not committed, to vote for you. Failure is not an option when the margins are only a few percent.
Forget M4all, how about raising the minimum wage, remember the Pro act; 1966 , 1977 , 2009 the party supported by the AFL CIO fails to deliver on promised labor reform with even larger majorities. While at the same time pursuing neo liberal policies that affected all American workers but especially union workers. How do you think the failure to deliver that labor reform again will go over in Union households in Wisconsin . Michigan , Pennsylvania , Ohio and even Missouri. Several of those states with Senate seats in play. Several won by tight margins in 2016 and 2020.
But are the Democrats really who they profess to be. Is it just failures in the education wars . Is it just Manchin , Warner , Kelly and Sinema or do they provide cover for a half dozen others. Is not being quite as vile as the opposition enough to win elections.
We get the politicians we have because of the power of money in elections. As long as the richest in both parties pick the candidates and the winners, don’t expect big change.
bethree5
That is exactly my point employers in a steep prolonged recession would have shifted costs and terminated plans at a break neck pace even higher than it had already been happening.
How does that play out politically when the vast majority of the American people become totally dissatisfied with or large numbers of workers have lost their insurance.
Employees always pay for healthcare costs because employers care about the total cost of employing a worker, not the fraction of that cost that is salary. If an employer is willing to employ a person at a cost of $50,000, it does not matter if all $50,000 goes to the employee or if $40,000 goes to the employee, $6,000 to a health insurance company to pay for health insurance for the employee and another $4,000 goes to pay “the employers” portion of the FICA tax.
Joel, I fear you are an idealist. I’d love to imagine US public would rise up en masse demanding M4all as employee-provided insurance delivered precipitously less coverage for ever-higher premiums. But it’s an incremental sort of thing. Even those of us with relatively high incomes in big companies became accustomed to the chipping away at salary-purchasing-power via ever-more expensive policies delivering less healthcare over 40yrs—even became conditioned to expect that primary care would dwindle through mergers/ less staff/ shorter hours, leaving us increasingly dependent on cheap clinics for emergency/ off-hrs reqts. By the time ACA came along it was just a sigh of gratitude that our millennial kids or self-employed siblings had recourse to some rather than zero health insurance. We have grown accustomed to our votes being out-$clouted by healthcare industry lobby, & feel helpless.
I’m not sure what can make M4all happen. I am shocked that it doesn’t happen simply by virtue of the price of insulin—a 100yo drug—having doubled between 2012-2016. Depending on type 1 or 2, this means the afflicted are spending between $800-$2300/mo to stay alive. If not that, WTF does it take? Is it just: oh well that’s only 7million Americans, their tough luck? I don’t think so. It says, Americans know their vote has no clout– reinforced by polls showing large majority US public in favor but voting folks to Congress who don’t stand up for it, because, presumably, they’re getting campaign coffers stuffed by big pharma/ healthins cos.
Even Kaiser poll (presumably biased) shows ‘robust’ Dem support plus 4 in 10 Rep support for a public option.
So, you tell me.
Why do Republicans scare voters with absurd claims about “Radical Socialism?
For the same reason that many Democrats scared voters with absurd claims about Radical Socialism when Bernie Sanders was running in the primaries.
Because it works.
Joel asks
Are the Democrats really who they profess to be?
No.
Is it just failures in the education wars?
No.
Is it just Manchin , Warner , Kelly and Sinema?
No.
Or do they provide cover for a half dozen others?
Yes.
Is not being quite as vile as the opposition enough to win elections?
Yes
Any other questions?
Does it matter whether the President is Trump or Biden?
Yes, yes, yes.
Does it matter whether Congress is controlled by Republicans or Democrats?
Yes, yes, yes.
The problem is that the Democratic establishment does such a poor job promoting their successes in regard to providing for the American people. Since Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz, Republicans have created a messaging process that heightens fear of change very effectively. Democrats rarely counter and too often find themselves explaining ad nauseam. Democrats on the coasts are too comfortable keeping their money and simply gasping at Republican insanity. Democrats have to engage with the middle of the country if they are to preserve the Republic.
Teachingeconomist
And I agree 100% . So what has been the trend line in wages and benefits. What was the trend line in the decade before ACA . It is far easier to cut benefits than wages. A worker may not notice his deductible has gone up or procedures aren’t covered till he actually gets sick. But he certainly would notice that his wage was cut by a dollar an hour.
Between 91 and 2010 5% of workers lost access to EPHI . But that only tells part of the story because an even greater number failed to partake in the EPHI offers as more costs were transferred to employees . The problem was even more significant among younger workers who obviously represent the future trend line . Thus ACA mandates stabilized what had been a decline in EPHI .
It we use the defined benefit pension as a model we we saw a 50% decline from 1980-2008 , with corporations shedding the burden . As wages certainly did not keep up with productivity or for that matter inflation in that period. This was not simply a transfer to employees Defined Contribution Plans but a decrease in wage packages for most.
SomeDAM Poet
Is not being quite as vile as the opposition enough to win elections?
I hope you are right. I fear you aren’t .
The Last Recourse
“But Trump was worse”
Of course, of course!
It’s now in verse
The last recourse
Progressives aren’t as vile as Democrats.
Hmm, that will win elections. Or maybe just get people who might support the progressive agenda to stop voting.
I wish people would stop using that language which implies there is little difference between progressives and Democrats and it doesn’t matter whether a progressive or Democrat wins because no matter what, they won’t adhere to the agenda that we demand of them.
I would like a specific citation of evidence for the comment “many Democrats scared voters with absurd claims about Radical Socialism when Bernie Sanders was running in the primaries.” Because I do not remember “many Democrats” saying that. I don’t remember any Democrats saying that.
When I hear accusations like that, I think of the Fox News correspondents who like to start questions to Biden’s press office with comments like “Many people are saying that Bernie Sanders is a radical socialist”. Jen Psaki has replied by asking “who is saying that?” and the reporters don’t know how to answer except repeat “many people”.
NYCSP
From that bastion of Radical Socialism, The Economic Times
“Sanders’ rivals joined in savaging the self-described democratic socialist as too radical to appeal to a broad swathe of Americans.”
https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/sanders-roughed-up-hits-back-at-democratic-presidential-debate/articleshow/74312637.cms
Demsheimer’s Disease
The memory is short
For Democratic sleaze
I sadly must report:
Incurable disease
bethree5
I wont attribute too much of the Trump vote to Marxian Economic Determinism. Yet I suspect in places like West Virginia and the Mid West . At least some of that vote is the result of decades of economic decline.
When 68% of the voters in West Virginia vote for a fascist populist demagogue. I think we can safely say they “rose up” . Just not in the way we would want them to. But certainly in the way we have come to expect them to historically.
Contrary to my fellow New Yorker. I seem to remember the “Democratic Establishment ” lighting on fire to attack Sanders and Warren’s M4all proposals. Not just the political class and pundits but
even the Union movement. By the way my Union plan was not merely a Cadillac but an Escalade Platinum Sport. Why we even saw the Culinary Workers in Vegas attacking Sanders and Warren. In response to M4all .
Of course I at the same time witnessed Union Market share of construction in NYC plummet. And do Tell how many Casinos in Vegas are now non union as Union membership dropped to its lowest level ever recorded in Nevada.
So I like to say Unions have great plans if they can keep them. As 1700 NYC Charter Spectrum workers are in the 4 th year of a strike over the loss of their health insurance.
As more and more workers saw their health insurance deteriorate I don’t suspect they would have taken to the streets like in the 1890s when socialists led the labor movement. What I do think is that they would not buy the bull and be the tools of some Democrats in bed with the insurance industry, Attacking M4all and touting how good their employer plans are.
I am calling the bluff of the people who are claiming “many Democrats scared voters with absurd claims about Radical Socialism when Bernie Sanders was running in the primaries.”
What I got was a link to an article that did not quote a single Democrat making absurd claims about Radical Socialism! I kept reading the article looking for an example of these “absurd claims about Radical Socialism” and here is what I found:
QUOTE: “Joe Biden, who needs a victory in South Carolina’s crucial primary on Saturday to keep his campaign alive, hit Sanders as soft on gun control”.
QUOTE: “Fellow progressive Elizabeth Warren and centrists Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, all desperate to halt Sanders’ momentum before it is too late, laid into his ability to deliver on costly programs like universal health care and tuition-free college.”
In fact, the only reason that Bernie Sanders had to fight attacks of being a “radical socialist” was because those attacks were coming from Trump and the Republican party and the media was asking Bernie to answer the charges.
Demsheimer’s Disease
The memory is short
For dishonest sleaze
I sadly must report:
Incurable disease
I am shocked by people who would rather attack and undermine Elizabeth Warren and destroy her in the name of the progressive movement. They exaggerate differences with untruths that do more harm than good. It’s a shame because both AOC and Bernie Sanders understand that the way to further the progressive movement is not to destroy friends and empower enemies.
Every time the progressive movement pushes false narratives — as I myself was guilty of when I insisted that Jimmy Carter should be defeated because he was no better than Reagan — they set the progressive movement back a decade.
In 2020, the smart progressive voices – AOC and Bernie and the squad — were the ones heard and the ones who devoted themselves to “informing” Americans about how Democrats were all evil were not amplified. And in just 4 months, America has made progress in the right direction instead of in the wrong one.
And it is telling that the supposed evidence that all these leading Democrats were making absurd claims about Bernie being a radical socialist is just a citation in an article that does not quote Democrats saying that! It only says Bernie had to answer those charges which were apparently never actually made!
The Republicans “remember” that even Bernie Sanders said HRC was a crook. That doesn’t make it true. Having a quote from Bernie Sanders saying that HRC was a crook makes it true, and that quote doesn’t exist.
Democrats disagree with some of Bernie’s policies and agree with others. And the reasons that they disagree vary, just like the reason that Bernie Sanders opposed gun control is different than the reason some right wing Republicans opposed gun control.
I wish we could have a discussion without trying to smear Democrats as some monolith that do nothing but work to prevent all progressive legislation because of the lie that Democrats represent only their corporate masters.
It’s as false as those on the right who say that electing any progressive is electing someone who wants to get rid of all private property and make America Communist.
It’s not helpful to having real discussion and is used to divide, not try to make America more progressive.
Joel,
Are you blaming unions and their leaders for refusing to act like good progressives and exchanging their hard earned union benefits and embracing Medicare for All?
Are those the “Democrats” who called Bernie a radical socialist?
NYC public school parent
Yes .
I assure you I have deeper ties to the union movement than you do.
I am a member of that union that saw 1700 of its 20,000 NYC workers lose their health insurance and their jobs when Spectrum essentially refused to negotiate, stopped paying into their benefit funds and forced a walk out ,replacing those workers with strike breakers .
It also happens to be the Union whose International President served as the head of Biden’s Labor Transition team.
So here is the future without significant changes to labor law which is I am afraid about as likely as M4all . All the smoke about the Pro act another dog and pony show that will end with no legislation.
At the current time high rise residential construction throughout the city is now almost entirely non union . Commercial construction about to follow it.
After over a year of demonstrations and job actions against Steve Ross’s Related Industries the largest Commercial Real Estate builder in the Country. Related brought the NYC building trades to their knees in 2019. Arguably the strongest private sector Unions in the country in a state with the highest unionization rate. . Insisting on Wage and Benefit cuts and receiving them from individual unions .
As he pits one trade union against the other making NYC an open shop town . So do tell me what do you think is the future for good union health insurance plans.
I love populist lefty politicians but I guess Rep Tim Ryan never got the message at the Democratic debates when he said what about those great union healthcare plans . Echoed by almost every host on MSNBC., CNN, even Fox learned to love union healthcare plans for a week or two as they continued to bash unions. … ….
So if you are asking me
“Are you blaming unions and their leaders for refusing to act like good progressives and exchanging their hard earned union benefits and embracing Medicare for All?”
I would say you phrase the question wrong . They will not be able to keep those plans. Certainly not at the benefit levels they have . And the leadership knows it .
They are stuck in the mind set of the 1920s when unions acting as fraternal organizations competed with employers providing in house healthcare for workers to attract members. Leading to insurers offering products to both. .
If that strategy providing excellent health insurance was working, Unions would not be down to 5.5% of the private sector workforce and sinking fast. .
And as we have seen in State after State as these private sector workers get crushed they vote for right wing politicians who attack the wages and benefits of Public Sector workers. Do you know how to say West Virginia , Wisconsin , Ohio, Michigan. …
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2019/03/06/related-cos-and-construction-unions-call-truce-over-hudson-yards-war-897561
Joel,
I agree with all your points. Thank you for stating them so cogently and providing good information as I did not know the specifics of what is going on in the building trades and other unions.
To me, it doesn’t do an iota of good to demonize unions as a scapegoat for why Medicare for All candidates don’t win more primaries. Is it helpful to convince all progressive and Democratic voters that the union leadership is totally corrupt and it is better to have right wing Republicans who want to completely destroy unions in power than to have those corrupt unions in power?
I don’t think so. It is helpful only to those who hate unions and want to destroy them completely.
I get that the union leadership is flawed — the same could be said of the teachers’ union leadership also. Being flawed doesn’t make that leadership totally corrupt and it doesn’t make the union leadership no better than those who want to completely destroy unions. There may be some corrupt union officials, but most are simply making compromises they (often wrongly) believe will give them the best deal for their union members.
Does that give me the right to say: “If you support the union, you are essentially supporting the idea that it’s okay that some people will die of treatable medical conditions because they can’t afford treatment. Personally, I find that repulsive, but you do you.”
Who really believe that the way to make the union better is to convince Americans that the union is totally corrupt and should be defeated at all costs even if it empowers right wing anti-union people who are no worse than the union itself?
The fact is, union members are no different than many Americans — they like their job-provided health insurance and don’t want it eliminated.
That’s why I thought Medicare for All who want it was a good way to begin the process of universal health care. Rather than lecturing to union members about how evil they are for supporting any candidate but Bernie Sanders and Medicare for All, they can be convinced to support Medicare for All who want it.
NYC public school parent
I did not say corrupt. Although there are some examples of that. They suffer from the same problems that affect most aging institutions. I am not going to go into the weeds but lets say they are resistant to change for reasons good and bad at the same time as their options are limited by legislation.
Joel,
Yes, institutions can be resistant to change. That is true of unions. That is true of the democratic party. But the fact remains – as Biden has shown – that those institutions can be changed but not if they are destroyed and demonized.
The unions in this country were resistant to change and the right wing did an excellent job of demonizing them. Thus Americans started turning against unions – hating their very name – when this country would have been far better if the people who supported unions were allowed to make them more responsive. The problem is that when the false narrative that “unions are evil” becomes the norm, those who support unions and want to make them better are attacked if they aren’t successful in achieving perfection immediately. The right gets the left to buy into their self-serving narrative that the lack of unions achieving perfection immediately proves that those leaders who wanted to make them better were always tools of corporate interests and corrupt. The left helps normalize the idea that unions need to be destroyed to make them better, which is basically the big lie that has always been the basis of the fascist takeover.
The same is true of democracy. “Democracy is too corrupt, it needs to be destroyed because America isn’t a perfect progressive country under Biden and only by destroying democrats will democracy flourish.” It is appalling to me that some of the left believe that lie. It is a lie that the smartest people on the left like Bernie and AOC know is dangerous. But some people who claim to support them are suspiciously easily swayed by the right wing propaganda which they hold out as “truth”. “We must destroy unions to make them better “is a lie. “We must destroy Democrats to make them better” is a lie. The way to make institutions better is to be like Bernie and AOC and work to make them better instead of working to destroy them altogether.
NYC public school parent
You have to calm down, I did not attack Unions I pointed out that there was IMHO a policy mistake that was extremely short sited(in fact there are many) and that they were used. Of course not all of them were . I said I would not go into the weeds on the issue . The reason for that is I would have to attack unions to do so . Something I do not choose to do because of exactly the reasons you expanded on. It would be misconstrued by the enemies of Unions.
Further you do not have to convince me to vote for Democrats I am with Chomsky . Almost all of those you would have to convince are not voting for Republicans either. And that is where those democratic failings come in as well.
Joel,
I know you aren’t attacking unions. I was just pointing out that there are other posters on here who don’t understand how they are being used (either wittingly or unwittingly) to amplify right wing propaganda that demonizes Democrats. Instead of making the kind of non-demonizing criticism of Democrats that Bernie and AOC make, these posters simply parrot the right wing propaganda that is targeted at them to help destroy democrats and empower the far right Republicans.
And I ask them how they would feel if I started demonizing the teachers union the way that they demonize the Democratic party, and if they think it would helpful if those of us who believe that leaders of the teachers union could be more progressive decided to just keep demonizing the union as corrupt and evil and something that should not be supported because it is so corrupt. Is that the way to make the union better – to get progressives and moderates to believe it can only be changed by empowering those who want to destroy it?
I believe that unions – despite their flaws – still offer something good and destroying them and empowering their enemies will not help anyone except the enemies of unions. And I think the same of Democrats. Anyone who pushes the false narrative that anything less than perfection makes the union a worthless entity is helping to destroy unions, not make them more progressive.
I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to criticize without demonizing. Bernie Sanders and AOC have shown us exactly how it can be done to advance the interests of progressives instead of reactionaries.
Snappy answer to the heading: Because this name-calling gins up their base and helps them get reelected.
There it is!
In West Wing terms, “the 10 word answer”
They love their phrases. They know their base doesn’t understand or doesn’t care. All they have to do is stand in front of a crowd (of angry, “no one cares about me.,” and uses the phrase “they” and “those people” a lot) and spew a phrase.
They grab the microphones and shout
“Hillary” or
“liberal socialists” or
use “China” as an adjective for anything negative or
“they want your guns” or
“birth certificate” or
“Hunter’s laptop” or
“critical race theory” and “1619” or
“welfare”
and they know it gets votes and donations.
And, if interviewed every response is “Well, what about … (see list above)
If the Preamble was in a piece of legislation, these fools would vote it down.
To avoid running in place, people who want change will have to be willing to break down the “they” into identifiable segments and attempt to lessen the power of those segments. In the 1970’s, the DAR was publicly called out. It became difficult for them to keep old members and to recruit new members. The DAR was a small segment but, it’s fall from grace garnered a lot of press.
nice summation
Most of Biden’s big plans will come to a grinding halt unless Biden is willing to ditch the filibuster. If Biden refuses to make the change, progressives will be less likely to show up for Democrats in the midterms. Progressive voters are frustrated will Democrats’ refusal to fight hard for their proposals. Biden needs to take off the rose colored glasses and dump the filibuster for the good of the American people and the future of the Democratic Party. https://ballotpedia.org/Arguments_for_and_against_the_filibuster,_2021
cx: frustrated with Democrats’
I agree with your political analysis and the necessity of ditching the filibuster. It’s not Biden’s call. He’s made clear that if abolishing the filibuster is what it’ll take, then the Senate should make it so. What he should be doing is leaning hard on the few Democratic holdouts in the Senate. Because his modus operandi is to work people behind the scenes instead of in public, he may well be doing so. I pray that he is.
There is so much idiocy in the comments here for me to waste time on to expend energy to correct. But when you write, “unless Biden is willing to ditch the filibuster”, it’s just too much. Replace Manchin and Sinema for “Biden” and you’ve on to something. But otherwise, your comment exposes how little you understand about the actual political process. It doesn’t matter a damn what Biden thinks about the filibuster. Not one f…ing damn. It does when the the Jim Crow-equivocating and loving Manchin and Sinema (and Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Cassidy, Romney, Sasse, Blackburn, Blunt, Braun, Burr, Inhofe, Risch, Rounds, Shelby, Twoomy, and Murrays) do. They are cowards. All.
GregB, I for one miss your input. That’s the 2nd time in recent weeks you’ve dissed the whole group as being just way beneath your willing to even bother a response because we’re just so [whatever], & otherwise we don’t hear from you. I’d gotten accustomed to your chiming right in with a totally non-liberal-bubble expansion of the discussion. Glad you’re back if just for an inch to inform those who should know better that Biden has no say over filibuster rules. But hey, could he maybe pressure behind the scene to influence those who make such decisions? Come back, GregB!!
Greg-
A “lack of understanding” indicates area for improvement. Pushback on the obvious and deliberate blindness, that’s another matter.
It’s been suggested at this blog that shibboleth and ingratiation are necessary to persuade blog readers. Not a great omen for what may have been assumed to be a “preaching to the choir” audience.
Greg,
Like Bethree, I think we need your voice here to bring sanity, clarity, wisdom. Biden alone can’t change Senate rules or pass legislation. The history-making Democratic presidents had large majorities in Congress.
dianeravitch
Yet the history making Republican Presidents have been able to deliver their policy goals with slim or no majority . Either in the polling both or the congress .
Reagan Tax cuts. Bush(shrub) Tax cuts. Trump tax cuts .
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Bonzo
Followed by “the era of big government is over,” Bubba
And who can forget Obama holding a National Charter Teacher Appreciation day or promising to pass TPP in the Lame Duck above the objections of a thousand MOSTLY progressive groups .
Or agreeing with Romney on the need for cuts to Entitlements in the first 2012 debate.
I will say its refreshing to see the depths of depravity the Republicans will go to, to achieve their goals . Garland strung out for a year. Then Barret confirmed in weeks . They understood that the court will legislate from the bench what they could never accomplish in congress.
An assault on Democracy in every State . While Democrats dither about passing a strong voting rights bill.
When my Democratic Congressman hands me (in 18 ) for my opinion an Economic Plan from his Problem Solvers Caucus that could have been written by Stephen Moore and doesn’t see whats wrong with it . I know I have problems .
Perhaps it wasn’t the majorities that Johnson had as much as it was his conviction that he was right on the legislation he passed.
oops \booth
Joel,
Surely you agree that Democrats are complicated.
Pro-charter Congressman Hakeem Jeffries endorsed one of the two pro-public school candidates in the Mayoral race, Maya Wiley.
Wiley was also endorsed by Nydia Velazquez and Yvette Clarke.
When Bernie was against gun control, it didn’t negate the fact that he supported a primarily progressive agenda. When Bernie supported “good public charters”, it didn’t negate the fact that he supported a primarily progressive agenda.
But some on the left take the Democrats they do not like and attack them on the positions that they are wrong about, and push the false narrative that those positions are the sum total of the candidate in an attempt to totally destroy that candidate. Which I point out is not what the Democrats have ever done to Bernie Sanders even when they have policy disagreements, but is exactly what the Republicans do to Bernie and AOC.
NYC public school parent
And I do agree that Democrats are complicated. I have not voted for a Republican since Jacob Javits. The Social issues were created as a distraction by the Right while they fleeced the people from abortion to the non existent problem of transsexual athletes a con job . As Carville said “Its the economy stupid. So its time to get back to basics .
“Politics is who decides who gets what when and how” (Laswell 1936).
Democrats have to go big or go home . Or for sure we will see Don jr in the White House .
Ginny, to be honest, I’m just too busy with work–a good thing considering how many have lost their work, and now that the pandemic is thawing, it only seems to pile up ever more–other personal things (I’ve realized my leaning tower of unread books is about to topple and I’ve got to make a dent in them since I can’t seem to stop adding to the pile), and things I’ve neglected. I do take time to read Diane’s posts at least once a day and I try to avoid the comments, but occasionally I weaken. When I do, for some reason my eye tends to wander to the comments that really infuriate me. As you have surmised, I’m just angry about so much in the world today. I realize now more than ever that my ability to do something about it, to help foster change, is as impotent as it has ever been. So work is a blessing of sorts. There are still people I can help there.
I am angry about the droning of some commentators and the marginalization and mischaracterization of others. I am, however, heartened how some who are better at articulating thoughts with which I agree. I am angry by how some elevate others for “fighting the good fight” as they are fully incompetent in waging the battle they purport to fight. And I am angry at myself for not having stayed with the fight for which I care so deeply–educating children and others about the functions and purposes of politics and governing.
So give me time. Not sure how engaged I will be, but I’m still here. I remain fascinated with the educators who truly know what they’re doing and walk their talk. I can’t really comment on many of the pure posts on education issues because I’m no longer in the game, but I care deeply about them. That’s what causes me to check in every day.
Thanks, Greg.
The GOP was against Social Security which they claimed was unconstitutional and would lead to totalitarianism. Reagan claimed that Medicare/Medicaid would lead to a loss of freedom and socialism. All baloney but enough people fall for this garbage and continue to vote against their own best interests. Today’s GOP just keeps screaming socialism, socialism, socialism morning, noon and night incessantly and loudly. They are like crazed robotic parrots on drugs.The GOP wants more guns but less health care.
Fear mongering is a common tactic of conservative politicians. Republicans tend to be more concerned with security than progressives. Some social scientists are suggesting that some of our political inclinations may be brain based. This brain imaging study suggests that different parts of brains respond to information differently in different types of people. Nobody knows for sure how much of our political leanings is “nature versus nurture,” but this article from “Scientific American” is an interesting read.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/
I wouldn’t put much stock in what Scientific American publishes. They have crossed the line into skewing data for “woke” policies. It’s ALL about the $$$$.
retired teacher
Is that not an oxymoron. Conservatives and brains.
But I am a bit skeptical of political neuroscience. Are there genetic differences between the people living in nations with progressive views and those with right wing views and how do we account for dramatic changes over time. No less rapid changes with in the same generations. And did the never Trump Republicans who have left the cult have brain surgery . Does the Nation go from 4 elections of Roosevelt followed by a moderate Eisenhower then Kennedy and Johnson . To the period between Nixon -Reagan the Bushes and Trump because of neurological changes in the brains of voters. Mooney lost me at several points in his book. As much as I would love to ascribe the views of today’s conservatives to brain defects.
LisaM– This is a subject I find interesting so allow me to digress.
allsides.com’s media bias section switched their rating of SciAmer from “center” to “left-leaning” only just last June, based on finding many articles written from the perspective of critical race theory. However, they also found many articles not ‘colored with left-wing political theory,’ & only cite the CRT phenomenon for calling them ‘leaning left.’ So I don’t think we can yet conclude they’re about “skewing data for ‘woke’ policies” in general.
The article retired teacher cites is on an unrelated topic. I tend to be skeptical of neuroscientific input to sociological phenomena, as it tends to (a)base conclusions on very generalized observations [which areas of brain ‘light up’], and (b)assume that physical brain is genetic/ fixed & determines reactions, without considering that nurture and experience change physical brain response [plasticity]. This article nicely summarized all those considerations, for a well-balanced report.
One section of the study framed hypothetical situations/ attitudes designed to tease out “neural processing as a function of whether the information was expected or unexpected—what they termed congruent or incongruent,” asking subjects to make a judgment [‘good’ or ‘bad.’] Interestingly, liberals tended to deliberate far longer over such questions before making a judgment.
IMHO—as usual w/neuroscientific input—the brain research just provides a physical reflection of what we already know intuitively. In this case, it follows that the gap between pro-‘I/me/mine’ vs pro-‘the public good’ widens sharply during times of economic disruption/ insecurity. (Conservatives per this study are more wired to caution/ fear responses, and less to error-detection/ conflict-resolution than liberals). That our liberals are concentrated on the coasts and urban sprawls corresponds to one’s sense that those who are more highly-educated &/or live cheek-by-jowl with other cultures/ classes are more likely to perceive the connection between public and individual good.
bethree5,
Is there something wrong with “woke policies”?? I don’t believe anyone needs to “skew data” to support woke policies.
However, they do need to UNskew data that has been used to justify racist, sexist and “America always right” policies.
LisaM suggested we dismiss SciAmer articles because they “skew data for ‘woke’ policies,” I countered that this seems to be an exaggeration [based on this https://www.allsides.com/news-source/scientific-american%5D. I see woke as meaning socially aware/ alert to issues of racial and social justice. Putting it in ‘quotes’ is pejorative, suggesting unreasonably sensitive, or maybe virtue-signaling. That would undermine the credulity of scientific reporting.
My first response was insufficient, just saying there doesn’t seem to be much at SciAmer along those lines. So I looked at the articles allsides cited as based on CRT (therefore redefining their media-basis rating from ‘neutral’ to ‘leans left’). There was no data-skewing; the articles were perhaps woke, definitely not ‘woke.’ Frankly I struggle to see why we should even interpret such articles as “left-leaning.”
bethree5,
Thank you for clarifying that. And I can’t imagine what reason anyone would have for using exaggerated attacks to undermine Scientific American. It makes me think they are not interested in a truthful debate but merely in pushing propaganda and getting people to hate and distrust Scientific American without having to provide any real evidence why we should believe their “truth” that Scientific American is not to be trusted. No evidence necessary, just their unwavering belief that they are right, similar to trying to discuss anything with Trump Republican voters these days.
“Every pope from Pius IX in 1849 though Benedict XVI has opposed socialism…(Pope Francis talks around it) …socialism is irreconcilable with true Christianity…socialism in any form, democratic socialism, moderate socialist, or even Christian socialism…Whether this nation moves toward or away from socialism will be determined by the people we elect to represent us. In the coming months of national campaigning …pray and cast your ballot wisely.” (Lawrence Grayson, visiting scholar at D.C.’s Catholic University of America (9-28-2019), posted at, “Our Sunday Visitor” website. If readers surmised that Grayson is an Anglo-Saxon male, his photo appears to confirm.
Ireland’s period of Great Hunger began in 1845. One million Irish died of starvation because of economic policies that were similar to Charles Koch’s social Darwinism. Journalists have described the friendly relationship between the Board of Catholic University of America and Charles Koch.
Read John Paul II’s 1991 “Centesimus Annus” Encyclical Letter on the centennial of Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum.” You can’t just collapse 150+ yrs of history & claim the church has been ‘anti-socialism’ all along, when what you mean by ‘socialism’ is a capitalist-based economy governed by democratic-socialists— the post-WWII Euro creation we point to as superior to our own retro, laissez-faire capitalism.
130 yrs ago, Leo XIII was decrying the abject poverty to which masses of people were subjected by late-stage industrial revolution and calling for the right of association (unions), living wages, the need for time off, less work for women and children—decrying the injustice of govt that favors the rich, calling for govt to specially care for and assist wage-earners and to intervene on behalf of the needy/ defenseless.
His excoriation of socialism’s denial of the right to private property in context: “…the evil of a solution which, by appearing to reverse the positions of the poor and the rich, was in reality detrimental to the very people whom it was meant to help. The remedy would prove worse than the sickness. To remedy these wrongs (the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the Socialists…contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all…; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. (my emphasis) This was prophetic of Stalin’s implementation of Lenin’s ideology, & we saw it again in China, Cambodia, et al.
Bethree-
“you can’t…” Lawrence Grayson wrote the summary I quoted. IMO, he used it as argument for voting for Trump (thinly veiled). Grayson is at Catholic University of America as a visiting scholar which means his e-mail address is likely available on the internet. If not, his academic dept. would probably be willing to forward your correction to him. His authoritative opinions are published at many Catholic sites. Contacting those sites with your corrections is advised.
The Catholic Church is based on a feudal model with a marked rank-order. So yes, the leadership will object to any system, like socialism, that contradicts that rank-order. Historically, I don’t think the church was thrilled with democracy either.
I just finished reading a recent OpEd from the BBC that deals with this issue. This piece also mentions Trump and how misguided people supported him because he was saying what they wanted to hear.
“It’s done so much for human well-being, but it’s far from perfect. Will capitalism as we know it evolve into something new?”
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210525-why-the-next-stage-of-capitalism-is-coming?utm_source=pocket-newtab
After reading that piece, it is obvious that Biden’s goals are aimed at improving capitalism to improve the lives of more people and safeguard the environment at the same time vs Traitor Trump’s loyalists in the Republican Party wanting to keep things the way they have been since President Reagan launched trickle-down, piss-on-the-working-class cutthroat capitalism.
We cannot have a healthy capitalist economy without a healthy and economically secure work force. Universal health care, a well paid teaching force, modern infrastructure, and meaningful family leave are investments in a society that provide opportunity. I do not understand why the Democratic Party does not more forcefully insist that their policies are in fact capitalist.
Not disagreeing, just adding: the way to do that is via regulated capitalism—a concept that was long understood and only altered in the ‘80’s & thereafter (IMHO) because it suited the drive of those in power to grab biggest pieces of a shrinking economic pie.
I was an artsie in college but helped history/polisci bf by typing his papers. Learned way back then in late ’60’s that untrammeled capitalism led inevitably to elitism.
Because it works. Fear appeals have generally worked in the past. Fear produced politician after fake leader all through the century between the great train strikes of 1877 and Richard Nixon. It was Nixon who moved the Republican Party away from its northern business base and into the southern strategy. No politician ever bested Richard Nixon in fear appeals to fear.
This is true. However there were periods between 1877 & Nixon – where fear was not operant—not the go-to campaign mantra—because economy was secure. In those periods, pro-public-good legislation was passed. This also happened when our economic backs were to the wall [Depression]. We are, I think, at one of those backs-to-the-wall periods again, due to covid, & can make some changes. Law takes a while to undo.
I have never discovered a period of American political history when the Right wing was not playing this card. Many years ago, when I was in undergrad, I completed a lengthy independent study of this actual topic. My thesis was exactly that red-baiting was a consistent aspect of American politics.
You are correct, however, that there are time when it has been more successful than others. These time have indeed coincided with better economic times.
There will be no public-good legislation unless Congress has a Democratic majority that can withstand Republican filibuster.
Blascks in the South would tell you that fear has always been “operant”.
Are you Socialism-curious but ashamed to let anyone know the thoughts you’ve been harboring while watching Mitch McConnell, during the IQ45 presidency, loot the treasury to engorge the rich? Then you’ve come to the right place. Act now and we’ll send, for the S-curious only, the complete regulations of the national healthcare and parental leave systems of Denmark, discretely packaged in a brown paper wrapper!
The first 25 callers also get, absolutely free, our red T-shirt with Red for Ed stitched on the label, and only you will know it’s there! Wear it with your MAGA hat.
Just know that you are not alone. Others have these urges, too! Who knows, maybe that guy next to you at the gun range or the NASCAR rally!
Also try in the privacy of your own home our phone foment service! Our bevy of beautiful young comrades will whisper sweet sedition about economic equity and racial justice into your ear and even call you a commie libtard pinko snowflake! Oh, yeah, baby! Sing me a little of that Union Maid song! or Joe Hill!!! Long distance and roaming charges may apply.
LOL! Brilliant!
It’s the FUD strategy, instilling Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, which is very effective for undermining truth and spreading propaganda, especially with low information populations who have poor critical thinking skills and are particular gullible.
I don’t understand how supposedly religious leaders, such as Evangelicals, can get away with condoning that, as well as right wing ideology, since so much of what is being espoused is self-serving, promotes anti-social behaviors, as well a intolerance of diversity and hatred of people who are different, all of which are inconsistent with the teachings of Christ.
And, with power in the wrong hands, we have seen how that can result in the destruction of democracy and take-over by a dictator-wannabe. Yet most of the GOP denies it, looks the other way and will not take steps to prevent that from occurring, including those who know it very well, like Mitch McConnell, because their bottom line is really about profits over people.
It appears that evangelicals are well-entrenched in their ideology and have a follower mentality (about 20% of the population). Are there any other religious sects that have independent-minded, better educated members, who currently vote GOP, but might be persuaded to be vocal for progressivism? If not, I think the US is doomed. Trump and Steve Bannon understood the calculus.
In Ohio, the head of the state Dem. party, who became a legislator, said in a newspaper interview that when the Bishops call, politicians pick up the phone. The state Catholic Conferences politic for school choice among other capitalistic views. Because tribalism is involved, when a Dem. politician is, say, pro-choice, a campaign to oust him/her
develops within the churches in his/her district. That’s a lot of base for a politician to lose.
Partisanship at the state and local levels, based on religion, is very problematic for change. The northeast pundits continue with their shock and puzzlement at the central states where the GOP defeats Dems when it is only unknowable to those with blinders on..
Agree. Mitch McConnell governs on behalf of the GOP contributors and protects their wealth.