By Jay Cost
Monday, March 11, 2019
This week New York
Magazine posed an interesting question: Has the “socialist” moment in the
Democratic party arrived? Maybe so. The popularity of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
among journalists and social-media types suggests that socialism’s appeal is
growing. And, of course, we should not underestimate Bernie Sanders’s appeal in
the Democratic primary.
But before Democrats embrace socialism, they would do
well to ponder just what a break from the party’s history the
Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez faction is proposing. For roughly 70 years, the
Democratic party has successfully kept radical forces at bay and, as a
consequence, enjoyed political success.
Post-war liberalism, far from being a radical political
program, actually had the effect of isolating and minimizing left-wing
radicalism in the United States. One could argue that this was liberals’ intent
— on both the domestic and the international fronts.
Domestically speaking, the essence of post-war liberalism
was to share the bounty of capitalism in a more egalitarian manner. A lot of
this was initiated with the New Deal. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935,
also known as the Wagner Act, for instance, gave labor unions the right to
bargain for better wages and, by implication, allowed a fairer distribution of
corporate profits. And while the particulars of post-war liberal programs were
novel in some respects — with their particular emphasis on health care and
education — the Left’s agenda remained philosophically similar to FDR’s New
Deal mission: saving capitalism from itself.
Put aside the merits of this agenda — whether it has been
successful on its own terms, or whether it has produced bad side effects (I am
in the latter camp). The point is that this
is how the mainstream Left viewed its own project. And in at least one
important regard, the agenda was enormously successful: It mostly pushed the
radical fringe outside politics.
We’ve mainly forgotten the 75 years between the Civil War
and the Great Depression, and when we do remember them, we think of the era as
one of corrupt contentment. But there was a radical undercurrent to the
politics of the period; at times, it threatened to drag the whole nation down
with it. The Populist party called for government seizure of the railroads in
1892, a proposal that William Jennings Bryan endorsed prior to his run for the
presidency in 1908. Socialism was a viable political force in the Midwest during
this time — Milwaukee elected a socialist mayor in 1910, and Eugene V. Debs put
together a coalition of urban and agrarian radicals that accounted for more
than 5 percent of the presidential vote in 1912. But after the political
success of the New Deal, the economic socialists were not a significant force
in electoral politics. FDR and his successors produced a politically
satisfactory middle ground between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism.
Something similar happened with the Left on foreign
policy during the Cold War. The Democratic party adopted a thoroughly
anti-Communist stance that had the effect of boxing out those who did not see
the Soviet Union as a threat. The decisive contest over the soul of the Left
turned out to be the 1944 vice-presidential contest, when a coalition of
southern Democrats, Catholics, and soon-to-be Cold Warriors insisted that Vice
President Henry Wallace be denied another term. Instead, Democrats settled on
Harry Truman as the heir to FDR. Truman adopted an unapologetically
pro-American, interventionist foreign policy, while Wallace was basically
exiled from the party. Running as an independent in 1948, he won just 2 percent
of the vote.
This was an incredibly successful mix of domestic and
foreign policies. Regardless of how Barack Obama saw himself (or how the rest
of the country saw him), he can mostly be understood as operating within this
Democratic tradition, which links him to Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon
Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Truman, and Roosevelt.
Bernie Sanders is not part of this tradition and does not
see himself as belonging to it, either. Although he caucuses with Democrats in
Congress, he sees himself as a democratic socialist. His ideology is not the
same as that held by early-20th-century progressives, who wanted to control the
means of production. But it’s close enough, in that the confiscatory tax rates Sanders
supports would give the state most of the benefits from private enterprise. His
domestic agenda is not intended to stabilize our capitalist system and make it
fairer; instead, he explicitly seeks to disrupt it.
Take health care. It was one thing for Truman to propose
a national health-insurance program in 1949, when health-care expenditures
counted for less than 5 percent of GDP. It is quite another for Sanders to call
for Medicare for all in an economy where health care is 18 percent of GDP, as it
now is. Similarly, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal bears little
substantive resemblance to the New Deal, which sought to coordinate the
existing forces in society to alleviate the Great Depression for the good of
all. Ocasio-Cortez’s plan would totally upend society as we have known it.
And as for his foreign policy, Sanders took trips to the
USSR, where he publicly criticized the United States. Obviously, the Soviet
Union is no more, but a Sanders presidency would fundamentally realign American
foreign policy.
The brilliance of the New Deal/post-war liberal project
is that it was a progressive agenda for a fundamentally prosperous and
reasonably contented people. It was presented to Americans as a way to solve
public and social problems without
disrupting the pathways of wealth creation and upward mobility that already
existed. As Obama said, “you can keep your health insurance if you like it.”
That was a lie, but soothing claims such as this have been essential to the
post-war liberal program, which goes something like this: If you’re not doing
too well, we will help you; if you’re doing really, really well, we’re going to
ask you to pitch in a little more; if you’re doing all right, we’ll leave you
alone.
This is not
what Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are promising. They seem intent on disrupting
life for every American, in fundamental ways. This is radicalism, and it has never been politically successful in
the United States. There is, of course, a first time for everything. But this
would be a first in this nation’s 225-year history.
No comments:
Post a Comment