The op ed page of today's Boston Globe offers a pair of pieces taking Conservatives to task for their misuse of terminology. The first, by Scot Lehigh, is entitled The conservative cries of fascism . . .. The second, by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, is entitled ... and Socialism
Sanders writes in response to remarks by Republican Rep. Spncer Bachus of AL that there are 17 Socialists in the House of Representatives.Himself an an acknowledged Socialist, he writes
I doubt there are any other socialists, let alone 17 more, in all of Congress. I also doubt that Bachus understands much about democratic socialism.
Nor, as he reminds us, do such notables as McCain,Limbaugh, Gingrich and Huckabee, who seek (without success) to political advantage by tarring their opponents with charges of socialism.
The real value of the column is not this introductory material, but what Sanders offers about the benefits of socialism.
Sanders thinks we could learn from Democratic Socialist nations like those in Scandinavia "where, by and large, the middle class has a far higher standard of living." He illustrates this by examining Finland, whose ambassador he had occasion to show around his state of Vermont. Vermonters crowded in to hear about a nation with a truly successful economic and social model. And what they learned?
Finland is a country that provides high-quality healthcare to all its people with virtually no out-of-pocket expense; where parents and their young children receive free excellent childcare and/or parental leave benefits that dwarf what our nation provides; where college and graduate education is free and where children in the public school system often record the highest results in international tests. Eighty percent of workers belong to unions, all employees enjoy at least 30 days paid vacation, and the gap between rich and poor is far more equitable than in the United States.
Before I go any further with that model, let's reiterate those points
high quality health care to all w/almost no out of pocket costs
free and excellent child care
meaningful parental leave beneifts
education free through graduate school
the highest scores on international tests of school childre
30 days paid vacation
a smaller gap between rich and poor
So let's see - yes, Finland has one of the world's highest tax burdens, 50% of overall income as compared to the US which currently is around 30-31%. These figures are not in the article - I know them because my AP Government students have recently been examining economic and social welfare policies. But they willingly pay those taxes because of the superb benefits they get in return. I would also note that we spend the most for healthcare of any nation in the world, and yet the overall health of our population is no where near the top, and for many of our people their access is like that in some developing nations that cannot care for their people.
Let's return to Sanders:
We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Our childcare system is inadequate. Too many children drop out of school, and college is increasingly unaffordable. We have more people in jails and prisons than any other country in the world.
In short, our current approach is failing many of our people. And if they are being failed, if they are not being included in the social contract, then to some measure we are all being failed, because we are not gaining the benefit of the productiveness of all our people.
We know about health care and the some 47 million uninsured. We fret about our schools, although often we are unwilling to examine the real reasons for our problems in our obsessions about test scores. Too often we ignore issues like our imprisonment rate and its iequities, although I am proud to note that my Senator Jim Webb is taking the lead on attempting to address this.
In my recounting of the first data-packed paragraph I quote, I deliberately did not in my reiteration repeat perhaps the most important single difference between Finland and the U. S. I will shortly return to it. Sanders notes that Finland is neither ideal nor isolated from the impact of the global financial crisis, something largely a product of two factors, the mismanagement and lack of oversight of our financial sector and the interconnectedness of the modern world. If our economy sneezes the world catches a cold. Even a country like Finland, much smaller and much less diverse than are we, is not immune from such events.
And yet there is one key difference that can perhaps explain why Finland is so much more able to provide so well for its people. It is the one mentioned by Sanders which I have not yet repeated, so that I could emphasize it now:
Eighty percent of workers belong to unions
Our percentage is, by contrast, approaching the single digits. And as our percentage has shrunk over the years, the disparities in income have increased, and many of the benefits that enabled us to build a remarkable middle class have begun to disappear.
Let's be clear: there is no doubt that unions are something the wealthy and powerful often strongly oppose. They will label them as "socialist" as if somehow that is something to be feared. Some of the battles unions fought were in times when there was fear of Communism, perhaps in light of the Soviet revolution, although strong opposition was encountered decades before the toppling first of the Romanov empire and then of the democratic Kerensky government. After all, there is power when ordinary people come together for common purpose.
There is nothing inherently alien to our constitutional system in adopting aspects of democratic socialism. After all, the very idea of a social contract moves us along a continuum in that direction: we surrender some of our supposed natural rights in return for the protection by the society of the rest. It
is why if I punch you, the criminal charge is not YOU v teacherken, but rather the PEOPLE of the state/nation v teacherken - a criminal offense is a violation of the social contract under which we all agree to operate, lest we have chaos, lest we descend to a Hobbesian world of the war of every man against ever other, with no meaningful agriculture nor industry, nor culture or leisure, and the life of man: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Many of the advances of this nation that lead to a substantial middle class came because of the actions of unions: the 8 hour day, the 5 day week, paid holidays and vacations, sick leave, medical insurance, retirement plans . . . people came together for their common good.
During the American Revolution Thomas Paine offered a warning: If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately. One might phrase the same thing differently, as does Billy Joel in one line from the chorus of "Goodnight Saigon" - and we will all go down together.
Near the end of his piece Sanders notes
When one thinks about the long march of human history, it is no small thing that democratic countries like Finland exist that operate under egalitarian principles, which have virtually abolished poverty, which provide almost-free healthcare to all, and free education through graduate school.
no small thing
egalitarian principles
Our history is rich in many ways. We have historically invented a new form of government, and during our two centuries plus have continually expanded who got to participate politically. Frederick Douglass once described the 15th Amendment to his fellow former slaves as "our jubilee" because he right recognized that without political participation full social and economic equality would never be possible.
Today is the 40th Earth Day. I remember in 1970 some people attacking the first because it fell on the birthday of Vladimir Ulanov, aka Lenin, which therefore meant it must be a communistic plot. I think it is appropriate that Sanders' piece on socialism appears today. Socialism involves a coming together for common purpose that ultimately benefits all. So does Earth Day - it involves a recognition that the actions of each of us and of our respective communities and nations has impact on the common heritage of all of us, the world on and in which we live: if we destroy that through selfishness we hurt everyone, and no matter how wealthy and independent we think we are, if nothing else we will be violating a key part of the Preamble of the document that officially established us as a democratic Republic:
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
common defence
general welfare
... both expressed not in terms of each of us as individuals, but together as a community
And not just for then to ourselves
but to a broader and longer view and our posterity
Commonality. Together. UNITED States.
Unions. Solidarity. Society. Socialism.
Democratic socialism neither strips one of individual rights nor denies one private property and accumulation of riches.
Unlike the misnamed national education law under the previous president, Democratic Socialism truly means leaving no one behind.
Sanders concludes by referring back indirectly to Spencer Bachus:
Whether we live in Burlington, Vt., or Montgomery, Ala., we should be prepared to study and learn from the successes of social-democratic countries. Name-calling and scare tactics won't do.
Those who merely use epithets do little but demonstrate their fear, that they have no ideas that can counter that which they seek to destroy.
Socialism - perhaps had we more, like those nations in Scandinavia such as Finland, we would be happier, healthier, live longer, and have less violence.
Or we can be stubborn like Spencer Bachus and Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and Mike Huckabee and hope that "I've got mine, Jack" is a more appealing argument to present, and if that does not work, if they cannot win the argument on its merits, perhaps they can scare people by invocation of boogeymen.
I think Sanders has the better of the argument.
What do you think?
Peace.