The Socialism Bogeyman

Politicians are masters at employing hyperbole, deception and simplistic generalizations to get noticed.  One of the more popular themes for conservatives these days is socialism.  With the ascendancy of several new charismatic and progressive house members, AOC being the most visible, conservatives have gone into a frenzy of name-calling, and their favorite is ‘socialist’.  A couple decades ago it would have been ‘communist’, but communism has lost its luster and relevance, so the right has pivoted to the next best bogeyman.

The primary definition of socialism is: ‘any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods’.  No serious politician is proposing true socialism for the U.S.  The use of the term is provocative and stirs up images of bomb-throwing radicals or soul-killing centralized economies.  Branding the progressive movement as ‘socialist’ is a cynical ploy to get publicity and to scare the highly impressionable public, who sadly don’t understand the details. 

A popular tactic these days is to invoke the horrors of Cuba or Venezuela as a way to discredit any progressive ideas.  This is an absurd comparison for many reasons.  Both of these countries’ ills have more to do with despotic leaders, authoritarian regimes and corruption than anything else.  One can point to multiple developing countries with so-called capitalist economies who are similarly devastated and broken.

Every industrialized country has some form of what is generally known as a ‘social democracy’.  The economic basis is capitalism with private ownership and entrepreneurship, but the government plays a role in the economy by regulating some aspects to provide a reasonable level of social justice and services and to avoid some of the historical pitfalls of raw capitalism.

The debate in modern politics is how much of a role the government should play in influencing the economy and how it should react to various economic trends or problems.  In the EU, many of the countries have embraced a stronger role for government to ensure that social services and wealth are more equitably distributed.  This is the model of government that many American progressives would like to see applied here. 

It can be argued that the EU countries have better health outcomes, longer life expectancy, a higher average standard of living, far less crime, shootings and incarceration, and a higher level of happiness than the U.S.  In my many trips to Germany I have been impressed by the spirit of social contract that most Germans feel.  They are willing to bear higher taxes and a more significant government role in their lives in the spirit of social harmony.

The U.S. clearly has a different mindset than Europe, for many reasons.  The ‘rugged individualism’ and outright fear and resentment of government that are classic American traits play against any spirit of social obligation.  And of course there are the complications of racial and ethnic disharmony that play a major role as well.

But there are challenges ahead that will not go away and will probably become more serious in short order – income inequality, under-employment, globalization, automation, big tech domination, a decaying infrastructure and climate change consequences to name a few.  These are not likely to be solved by the invisible hand of the free market.  And invoking the bogeyman of socialism at every attempt to address clear and present dangers in our society is an irresponsible and reckless ploy.