Mar 1, 2020 6 min read

After winning the most votes in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and winning the Nevada caucuses decisively, Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist, is the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. This has caused some Democratic strategists (James Carvelle) and many “never-Trump” Republicans to almost lose their minds. Despite polls that show Sanders does better against Trump than any other nominee besides Biden, they believe that the “socialist” moniker will let Trump get reelected. This fear (along with a few hundred million dollars) has also driven the rise of Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor (and former Republican). While the prospect of a real billionaire businessman from New York taking on Trump does have its attractions, since Trump has been essentially governing as a conventional right-wing Republican (tax cuts for the rich, dismantling environmental, consumer and worker protections), his fake populism actually makes him even more vulnerable to a real populist, such as Sanders.

What has Sanders’ critics concerned is that they fear he is susceptible to the inevitable Republican attacks on his socialism. Republicans have been successfully running on fear of communism since the 1950s, when they accused Democrats of “losing China” (though most historians recognize that no amount of American support would have prevented the communists from defeating the nationalists). With the demise of the Soviet Union, Republicans now charge Democrats as being “socialists” (since communism is dead), claiming that if Democrats are elected, they will destroy the economy (ignoring the fact that eight of the last 10 recessions began under Republican presidents). Republicans claim that the Democrats want to turn the U.S. into Venezuela, or the old Soviet Union. Please. No Democrat has this goal. The Democrats hold up the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Sweden, e.g.) as models of democratic socialism.

Republicans like to argue that history shows socialism doesn’t work. They point to the USSR (though they used to be the communists), where state-owned factories were producing shoddy products that no one wanted to buy. And they are right about that; state socialism, where the state owns the means of production and state planners determine the output, was a failure. Combined with an authoritarian political system, the Soviet Union became a model for how not to do socialism. Places like Venezuela and Cuba have made many of the same mistakes.

But claiming that is what socialism inevitably becomes is like saying Dickensian England, with its poor houses and horrendous working conditions, is what capitalism inevitably becomes. Capitalism and socialism are both broad enough terms to be descriptively almost meaningless. Capitalist systems tend to prioritize private profits, encourage risk-taking, and see caring for people who do not thrive as unnecessary costs that should be minimized. While it may be a stretch to say capitalists want there to be a large pool of unemployed people desperate to find work, such a pool does benefit business owners because it keeps wages low and workers compliant. While I would argue that well-paid workers are more productive (and will help increase consumer demand), reduce turnover (and associated costs) and are thus good for capitalism, not everyone sees it that way. Socialist systems tend to prioritize caring for basic needs first, while tolerating inefficiencies in overall productivity. The U.S. economy, like most economies, is a mix.

Sanders (and other leftist critics) like to argue that America has “socialism for the rich, individualism for the poor,” and this was demonstrated in the banking crisis in 2008, when banks that had taken aggressive risks in order to maximize their profits took large losses. But rather than let those banks fail, as they should have in a capitalist system to punish them for taking too much risk, the government bailed them out, fearing (not unreasonably) a collapse of the banking system if the banks were allowed to fail. So the banks “privatized their profits” while the risks were paying high returns, but “socialized the losses” when the investments went bad. All this while many homeowners defaulted on their mortgages but did not get a government bailout, because their problems did not endanger the financial system as a whole.

Socialists like to point out that we are already a socialist nation; things such as public schools, the armed forces, public roads, and Social Security are all socialistic. Socialism is pooling community resources (through taxes) to pay for something collectively that is either so vital everyone should have access, or simply much more efficiently procured collectively.

Sanders’ critics like to call him a “radical socialist” in an effort to undermine his appeal. He is radical in the sense that throughout his career he has been willing to speak his mind, even when his views were not popular, so he is not your typical politician. But his policies are not radical, since most of them already exist (in some form) in many of the most developed nations in the world.

People who fear that Sanders will dramatically change society (by starting a “revolution”) should also not worry. For better or for worse, there are a lot of checks and balances that serve to slow down any dramatic changes. Whatever he wants to do has to be approved by the Congress, where there will be a lot of Republicans (and moderate Democrats) who will force him to compromise in order to get anything done. So the likelihood of a Sanders presidency completely remaking society is slim. Since the 1980s, profits have been prioritized over people, and a Sanders presidency would be a necessary correction. Political campaigns are notorious for slandering the opposition by using inflammatory language to scare voters. When you consider who to support, look at their character and their policies to determine your choices, and don’t be confused by the use of vague, loaded terms that are meant to distract from the real issues.

Kent James is an East Washington resident and has degrees in history and policy management from Carnegie Mellon University. He is an adjunct professor of history at Washington & Jefferson College.