There was a time in Wyoming when it was enough for competing
politicians to contrast their views as either Democrats or Republicans. Candidates
chose which of those two labels they would use. The label mattered less than the
substance. People didn’t care which party you represented. They wanted to know
who you were and what you stood for.
Back then Wyoming had a healthy political debate. Sometimes
the Republican candidate won, sometimes the Democrat. I don’t know when that
changed but prior to 1976, sixteen men represented Wyoming in the U.S. Senate
(the Equality State has never elected a woman). Ten were Republicans. Six were
Democrats.
Until 1978, Wyoming elected 14 men to the U.S. House of
Representatives. The partisan division was nine Republicans and five Democrats.
For many decades, the state saw value in having members of both parties in the
congressional delegation. But all that changed in the late 1970s. Since 1976,
Wyoming has refused to send a Democrat to Washington, rejecting even the
popular former governor Mike Sullivan.
Arguably there are many reasons. One thing that changed is
the tone of the debate. Somewhere along the line, it became insufficient to
define your opponent as simply a member of one of the two political parties.
Republicans began to identify Democrats as “liberals.” The dialogue about
issues was replaced with labels. Voters accepted the shorthand. They quit
caring so much about where a candidate actually stood on the issues. It was
enough to learn he or she might just be a liberal.
Eventually, that term lost its punch. Now they are
“socialists.” The term is used by people who cannot define it in order to
persuade voters who, likewise, cannot define it. It all started when Sarah
Palin found she could get a rise out of her audiences by claiming Barack Obama
was one. She took a page out of the playbook of that erudite political philosopher
Joe the Plumber. The term caught fire and has been a mainstay of the debate
ever since, especially popular among right-wing media entertainers.
The use of the term may, as they say, electrify the base. But
using it demonstrates an abject level of ignorance. I ask speakers who use the
term to tell me what it means. I have yet to get an answer. They may not know what
it means but they know it scares the voters.
What is socialism? Socialism
is an economic concept that advocates public ownership of all resources. Members
of a society control the production and distribution of all resources
collectively. Goods are produced and distributed based on need rather than on
market forces such as profitability, price and consumers' purchasing power. In
a socialist economy, workers contribute to society based on their ability and
receive according to their needs, rater than being paid wages and using that
money to purchase what they want. Private possessions are limited to personal-use
items such as clothing. There is no need or ability for individuals to
accumulate wealth. The goa is equality among the people.
The second chapter
of the Book of Acts describes early Christians that way. “All who believed were
together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and
goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.” Now, first century
Christians could be called socialists. But there is absolutely no evidence that
twenty-first century Democrats are.
Today the definition
of the term has been intentionally dumbed down. Today it is a term used by some
to describe anyone they think should be kept put of public office or denied
access to the public arena. Conservatives learned from Joe McCarthy that it’s
enough to use words that frighten people. The words don’t have to be true. The
speaker doesn’t even have to know what they mean. The words may demean
democracy, but, what matters most is winning, right?
So, just toss the
word out there and see what happens.
For an older generation, Socialism is associated with then National Socialist Party of America, or the American Nazis, whose "activities" included a planned march through Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago suburb where approximately 1 in 6 residents were Jewish. The NSPA wore all the trappings of German Nazis including swastikas and brown uniforms of Hitler's followers. From the turn of the century, socialism in Europe was associated with fascism. The American Socialist movement here in the USA by extension has been associated with the terrorist tactics of Hitler’s Brown shirts.
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic that the religion of Mitt Romney is big on socialist ideals, where the good of the group outweighs the needs of the individual. The symbol of the state of Utah is a honeybee, a very communal creature, whose purpose is to contribute to the good of the hive. Brigham Young, in his zeal to create a completely different society invented his own alphabet and words for his Mormon community and called both the socialist honeybee and the then territory of Utah, "Deseret". Utah is the reddest of red states, but its residents fail to recognize the "socialist" roots that are still a part of their predominate religion.
As a lifelong liberal and a child of the 60's, I was appalled at the use by conservative politicians of word LIBERAL as something undesirable and negative. I was even more appalled when Democratic politicians began distancing themselves from that description. It was anathema and political death to be labeled a liberal in the around the turn of the century. So was born the Blue Dog, a strange hybrid creature that claimed to be both Democrat and conservative. And which has managed to sink a lot of social and fiscal legislation, not the least of which is the Affordable Healthcare Act. Although it was enacted, many Democrats were loath to try to explain to their constituents how this was not a “government takeover” of healthcare and therefore “socialism”. They let the radical right define what ObamaCare was and was not. Apparently Democrats had forgotten that the same tactics were used when Medicare and Social Security legislation were proposed. Legislation that now provides a safety net and healthcare for millions of seniors.
Democrats and liberals need to take a page from gays and lesbians and embrace the words that others use as an insult; i.e. Liberal. They need redefine themselves instead of letting Republicans and their Tea Party master do if or them. Liberalism and Socialism are not the same things, but they are not always mutually exclusive either. I’m glad that many candidates are coming out as loud and proud liberals, at least on social issues. On fiscal issues we can rethink how our limited resources are distributed. We need to reorder our priorities where people, not corporations (two different entities despite what Mitt Romney asserts), get the tax breaks and subsidies so that our economy may be built from the bottom up. Trickle down is a failure. It is the individual citizens who will kick start this economy. If it is a LIBERAL concept to assist the individual in order to boost the economy by providing them with the means to do so, then that is something we need to do, because the “job providers” aren’t living up to their title or “label” if you will.