Jim Harbison’s
recent column complains about what its title asserts, “Democrats now publicly
and openly socialists” (10 Jan).
Harbison claims that “the liberal Pew Research [sic] recently validated this description in a
recent survey based on current Democrat political ideology, policies, and
self-identification.” Two points about
this claim deserve brief mention. First,
the Pew Research Center (PRC) is a non-partisan, not a liberal,
organization. Harbison uses the word
“liberal” to suggest a self-confession by the left of its identification and
allegiance. Second, as he omits the full
name of the organization, so he omits the title of the report. He intends the omission to hinder an
assessment of the truth or falsity of his representations of an unnamed report. (Such spurious claims of supporting reports
have become a standard conservative Republican/Tea Party ruse to give bogus authority
to their political fictions.)
I tried to find a PRC
survey supporting Harbison’s claim but, like the many letters-to-the-editor
writers, found no such survey, no such description of Democrats as socialists,
no such validation of them as socialists.
Many PRC reports analyze American attitudes, beliefs, and positions by
various parameters, including differences between Democrats and Republicans. One report analyzes responses, whether
favorable or not, to the words “capitalism” and “socialism” across various
parameters—not the same as associating the terms with parties, policies, or political
philosophies. Harbison’s claim is a fraudulent
one based on his twisted interpretations to serve his ideology.
Despite its dishonesty,
Harbison’s column usefully prompts three questions. First but least is what difference does it
make to label Democrats “socialists.” So
far as I can tell, not much. Policies, whether
Democratic or Republican, are good or bad because of their positive or negative
effects, not because of their labeling.
Harbison is arguing, not the presumably adverse effects of Democratic
policies, but the repugnance which some people feel for anything which can be
smeared with pejorative labels. Labels
are powerful ways to honor or discredit ideas or individuals, but they are not
arguments. His column amounts to a wordy
and worthless exercise in name-calling.
The second question is what
is the meaning of “socialism.” The
traditional answer is a form of government which owns and operates major
productive and service industries.
Harbison’s definition has nothing to do with this definition; it has
everything to do with the word “social,” something very different. Harbison sees social policies, whether they
address taxation, financial distributions (social safety net programs), health,
education, environment, and more, as “socialist.” His alternative is few or no policies or programs
social in nature, and little or no government to implement them—which would
move the country toward a plutocratic police state—an ironic outcome given
wacko Republican and Tea Party blather and bluster about “tyrannical
government.”
Third but most
important, if Harbison were right about the country going socialist—I am going
to assume his conclusion for the sake of argument—why after nearly a century
and a half of success, is capitalism losing its appeal to increasing numbers of
Americans? If capitalism remains a
worthy economic system, why does it no longer convince many Americans of its
merits? Instead of asking and addressing
these crucial questions, Harbison relies on a partisan recital of complaints
about the purported vices of socialism instead of arguments advancing the
proven virtues of capitalism. This
rhetorical approach is not going to persuade anyone, only preach to his choir.
Friends of
capitalism like Harbison are its worst enemies.
They forget that an economic system, as a component of a political
system, especially a democracy, must provide more benefits than detriments to
society as a whole. Even in
non-democratic states, the long-run stability of the political system requires
some concessions to the population as a whole, in the distribution of
benefits. Thus, famously, the government
of imperial Rome provided bread and circuses to its citizens and slaves.
In the historical
context of the American political and economic system, the promise has been a
fair share of society’s benefits and a decent life enabling a modicum of self-respect
and comfort. As long as that promise has
appeared capable of fulfillment, people have accepted, even embraced,
capitalism. When depressions,
recessions, or, ironically, recent Republican or conservative scares about
social safety net programs have called the promise of capitalism into question,
people become doubtful about its benefits, attitudes shift, and polls reflect
their shift.
What Harbison’s partisan
polemic shows is that efforts to protect increasingly concentrated wealth is
blinding Republicans and conservatives to the perils of their present
course. The middle class increasingly
sees a conflict between their promises of greater economic growth and more
opportunity, and the realities of increasing economic inequality and social stratification. Capitalism, by accelerating economic disparities
and social rigidity, is reneging on its promises to the growing majority of
Americans.
The paradox for
those like Harbison is that his “socialist” programs are good for
capitalism. Instead of spending millions
on candidates who will vote capitalists enough rope to hang themselves, Republicans
and conservatives should be supporting “social” programs which secure
capitalism from disaffection and revolt.
The alternative is to ensure a government advancing the interests of the
few at the expense of the many, with the result being either government
repression or populist revolution. Unless
popular discontent can be diverted and focused on scapegoats—Jews are the historically
and culturally preferred candidates, but Muslims, “illegal immigrants,” or
“welfare queens,” among others, might serve in their stead—rebellion will be
launched, ironically, not against socialists, but against capitalists, because
capitalists are creating fewer satisfied “capitalists” than disaffected
“socialists.”
No comments:
Post a Comment