The
Lost Opportunity of the Sanders Candidacy
It was
our 26th president, Teddy Roosevelt, who recognized his position and
the White House as a “bully pulpit,” defined as “a public office or
position of authority that provides its occupant with an outstanding
opportunity to speak out on any issue.” Perhaps it’s unfair, but it seems that
Bernie Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate for 2016 is missing a
golden opportunity to follow the spirit, if not the letter of Teddy’s insight.
The
media is apt to remind us that Bernie Sanders is “unelectable” because he is a
“socialist” even as he corrects everyone that he is a “social democrat.” He is
saddled with the old Cold War mentality that understood “socialism” as the marker
of the Soviet Union, a militaristic dictatorship with central planning and lack
of freedom for its citizens. The Cold War is over, the Soviet Union (and its
form of State Socialism) collapsed, and social democracy is the rage in most
Eurozone countries.
Bernie
Sanders has the golden opportunity not only to make sure Americans are aware of
these simple facts—and thereby change the tenor of the discourse over his
policies—but also to offer a brief explanation of what social democracy is
about, and how it has been practiced not only in Europe but also in the USA. In
short, Bernie’s candidacy is missing an opportunity that any leftist academic
would “kill” for: teaching the
American public what is actually going on in our midst.
Social democracy is primarily understood as a political system
that is democratic with market economy that favors public ownership of the
means of production and has a great concern for public goods and services—from
roads and bridges to the Internet—with a modicum of humanity in the form of
safety nets for the poor, needy, and underprivileged. This means, in short,
less concern with who “owns” a factory or a business, but more with how private
ownership enhances public welfare rather than exploits it.
This kind of 21st
socialism is not our grandparents’ one; it cares more about using market
efficiencies and less about central planning by some faraway bureaucrats; and
it demands that when private ownership controls this or that industry, it
should be proven that it’s superior to the state owning natural resources, for
example, or that “economies of scale” are in fact operating in a way to cheapen
resources and products for all of us. In short, it’s a sophisticated system
that appreciates the ultimate goal of ensuring the best, most productive use of
natural and human resources.
So, to begin with, Bernie can explain what was just said.
He can distinguish the crude and abusive state-planning system from the more
nuanced and efficient system so many modern European and Asian economies use
today. But, secondly, Bernie can also point out that in fact we are already
living in a quasi-socialist system that has been endorsed by the entire
political spectrum.
How are we already social-democrats? We have numerous
safety nets that have become part of American culture and that will not be
scrapped anytime soon. For example, there is no presidential candidate that
wants to abolish Social Security, probably the most “socialist” of our practices.
Nor is any candidate proposing to do away with Medicare; likewise, no one has
suggested doing away with Medicaid which is an even more committed socialist
ideal of providing health care to indigent people who cannot afford even base
health insurance. Despite the rhetoric about the Affordable Care Act, all
candidates know not to threaten some of the “sacred cows” the elderly have come
to depend on so deeply—and they vote!
But then, again, there are numerous other forms of
so-called socialism we readily practice, even find attractive to fight for.
Among them we must mention the military-industrial-academic complex that
captures some $600 billion annually, and that among other things, offers opportunities
to the least advantaged in ways the rest of the economy does not. Yes, the
military, too, is part of the enormous welfare system we have in place, even
though we prefer to speak of it in terms of “national security.”
When all the candidates talk enthusiastically about their
commitments to education, they forget to admit that these programs, from Pell
Grants to Student Aid and Loans are government-sponsored programs that are
funded (or guaranteed) by taxing the public (progressively, mind you, which
means that the richer pay (theoretically) a higher percentage of their income
than poorer citizens).
And lest we forget the most socialist activity since the
New Deal (1933-1938), the banking bailout in 2008 was endorsed and implemented
(legally and practically) by both the Bush and the Obama administrations. Good
capitalists would have let weak banks collapse if they overreached or managed
their finances poorly. No? Who’d think that conservative administrators would
recommend government intervention?
Bernie Sanders, as he excites the young and less
privileged, should keep reminding the public how socialist we already are, how
fortunate we are that we are socialist to some extent, and that the debate is
about keeping an intelligent and sensitive balance between being too socialist
and not socialist enough. Would you want to live in a country where the poor
die in the streets because of no access to health, shelter, and jobs? Are you
willing to pay the price unfettered capitalism would exact on those not at the
very 1% top? Of course not.
Having the voice of Biblical prophets who spoke truth to
power and who reminded the political establishment of their day of moral
justice and their responsibilities as kings, Bernie should go even further in
tutoring his audiences. Since we are already quasi-socialist, he can ask now how
far—morally, socially, and economically—we should go to ensure the prosperity
of all. We should be grateful to Bernie’s voice, loud and angry as it is, and
the fact that he still rails against the big banks and the “billionaire class.”
Yet, we can also entreat him to give a lesson, the kind of lesson given by
those ancient prophets, and remind the American public that to be a socialist
in the 21st century is to be both sensible and humane, or what we’re
to believe makes us so great.
