I think that Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley has this one exactly right:
Mr. Sanders suggests he’s another Franklin D. Roosevelt, but FDR didn’t self-identify as a socialist or spend his political career challenging the Democratic Party establishment. Mr. Sanders’s policy positions put him closer to Eugene V. Debs, a prominent labor leader in the early 1900s. Like Mr. Sanders, Debs was an antiwar activist who opposed capitalism, wanted more wealth redistribution, and played the “working class†off against the “elites.†Mr. Sanders has called Debs “a socialist, a revolutionary and probably the most effective and popular leader that the American working class has ever had.†The Socialist Party of America nominated Debs for president five times between 1900 and 1920. He never won a state but did garner 6% of the vote in 1912.
Whatever small interest voters had in socialism got even smaller in the run-up to World War II. The Socialist Party won only 2% of the vote in 1932 and less than 1% four years later. The New Deal and Great Society programs swelled the size of government, but they didn’t make the socialist label any more popular. When Mr. Sanders first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1972 as a candidate of the socialist Liberty Union Party, he managed 2% of the vote. He would lose several more statewide races before becoming mayor of Burlington in 1981. He won a seat in Congress as an independent in 1990 and became only the third socialist ever elected to the U.S. House. The second one left office in 1929.
The left’s current flirtation with socialism reflects in part the failure of Democrats to address the economic concerns of their voters, and it’s of a piece with the right-wing populism that put the GOP through the wringer four years ago and landed Donald Trump in the White House. Mr. Sanders is betting that millions of Democrats thought President Obama was too conservative. He’s hoping that promises to make more stuff “freeâ€â€”health care, higher education, housing—will entice Americans to accept enormous constraints on private enterprise and unprecedented government intervention in their lives.
I had that exact thought yesterday on hearing Sen. Sanders compared with FDR and had intended to write a post on the subject but Mr. Riley beat me to it. Sanders is no FDR. That such a thing could even be entertained is proof positive that we need a return to teaching American history in public schools, a history that isn’t one of class struggle and interest groups.
Agree that FDR was not a socialist and what Sanders wants is different. The thing which I think is making Sanders have some popularity is that he is actually championing workers and young people. So much of our government expenditures go to old people. Policy is always aimed at benefitting the wealthy. Also, he appears to not have the history of corruption and scandal, enriching himself at the cost of others that we see in other politicians. However, his solutions are just not going to work. He alienates everyone not in his base of supporters. (Hmm, sounds like our current POTUS.) Just not a good choice.
Steve
Although FDR was not a socialist, he was a social progressive who had overt admiration for some of Stalin’s policies. As for Sander’s championing workers and young people, I would describe it more as bribing them with government handouts. That’s not necessarily strengthening a class of people, rather it’s enabling and making them weaker, dependent on government overtures and this creating dependable constituencies which will continue voting them into office. In a way it’s enslaving them to become party loyalists, or else risk losing benefits that have been convincingly renamed as “rights.â€
My own view is that it’s reasonable to term things “benefits” but not “rights”. Social Security is not a right; it’s a benefit. We should not be implementing positive rights. Negative rights, as in “Congress shall make no law…”, can be implemented without introducing basic conflicts.
The concrete example is that we can establish health care benefits without adverse effects other than putting a strain on the budget. We can’t make health care a right without running head on into other rights, e.g. the right to property or the right to self-determination.
Sanders says he a Democratic Socialist. Well, the Democratic Socialist Party of America has an entire section of their website devoted to promoting Sanders and they specifically make the comparison to Eugene Debs and not FDR.
AOC is a member of the DSA but doesn’t publically carry that label. She’s also one of Bernie’s biggest supporters in Congress.
I’d guess Bernie concluded he could be more politically successful as an “independent” then as part of the organization that agrees with 90% of his policies.
@Steve: “So much of our government expenditures go to old people.”
Not true: public education worth over $15000 each goes to young people, far outweighing benefits to old people.
@Dave Schuler: “Social Security is not a right; it’s a benefit.”
An old person will have paid FICA through the nose for decades, making SS and Medicare a form of contractual right and not an unearned benefit.
Medicaid and food stamps, on the other hand, are unearned welfare benefits, based mostly on poverty, not marriage, sex, breeding status or age, and therefore supported even by Milton Friedman.
@Dave Schuler: “The concrete example is that we can establish health care benefits without adverse effects other than putting a strain on the budget. We can’t make health care a right without running head on into other rights, e.g. the right to property or the right to self-determination.”
Something forced on me without my consent, like SS, Medicare and Obamacare, pregnancy leave, paid FMLA, vacation, sick leave et. al. cannot properly be called a benefit. It’s like calling free infant circumcision or baptism a benefit.
A true benefit might be something like low-income housing, foodstamps and Medicaid, which can easily be refused by the recipient who has, in any case, not been assessed to support it.
Nope. That has been fully litigated. It is not a right. It can be reduced or eliminated entirely without any recourse on the part of the beneficiary.
FICA is a tax plain and simple. In paying it you are not paying to support your own eventual SSRI payments. Due to the fund accounting you are paying for the SSRI payments of present beneficiaries.
The last truly significant third party in US history (not counting one-offs like the Progressives and the Dixiecrats of 1948, George Wallace, and Ross Perot) was the People’s Party in the late 19th century, more well known by its nickname the Populist Party. Their strength was primarily in farm country. In 1892 they actually won several western states in the Presidential election and got over 8% of the national vote. The Democrats incorporated much of their platform into their own in the years immediately succeeding and as a result the party quickly faded as a political force.
Jason Riley is a good columnist who does an excellent job pointing out the facts and cutting to the chase. Even if you totally disagree with his ideology, you have to give him that.
IMO Sanders has no intention of actually running against Trump. He’s negotiating for another payoff. The speed in which Biden is mentally fading makes me wonder if the Democrats should select Chauncey instead. At least Chauncey sounded faux profound instead of just delusional. The way Joe is slipping in time and space reminds me of my mother-in-law’s descent into Alzheimer’s. Very painful to watch even if you dislike the man, which I do.
This may be crazy, and I don’t mind being called crazy for it, but some legal minds have apparently explored the possibility that Barack Obama might be able to run as VP in 2020. Apparently the Constitution and its Amendments don’t absolutely rule out a VP serving as President in case the President becomes incapacitated (which I would expect would quickly happen to Biden were he to be elected). A Joe Biden-Barack Obama ticket would be formidable because Obama has kept his political machine oiled and tuned. The prospect of a third Obama term might revolt enough people that that ticket would be defeated, but IMO it’s not a certain thing, a lot of people still look fondly back at his administration as the ‘happy days of old’. Here’s the article I found exploring this very issue:
https://hillreporter.com/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-in-2020-32771
But his pride…..?
The move would be ruled illegal under the 12th and 22nd Amendments.
Glad to read Dave’s response about Barak Obama running up against constitutional verbiage, should Biden try to put him in the VP slot. However, his wife, Michelle, would be a formidable choice, one putting the Obamas right back into the loop of influence and power.
That is all fantasizing. Neither Obama will be seriously considered for VP.
I think Biden, should he get the nomination, would probably be smart to pick someone that will keep the Bernie Bros from staying home on election day.
@Dave Schuler
“Nope. That has been fully litigated. It is not a right.” A case litigated in a forum controlled by one of the litigants cannot be said to be “fully litigated.” It needs to be litigated in a neutral forum with the defense representing all the screwed American FICA contributors.
This country is already more like Russia, China and Cuba than Bernie can imagine.
“have apparently explored the possibility that Barack Obama might be able to run as VP in 2020”
All just nonsense to elicit more fundraising on the right. Not happening.
Steve