I don't disagree with this argument, but it raises a question: who in Congress works with President Bernie Sanders? He wants to make radical changes, but Donald Trump promised to "drain the swamp." Trump supposedly had the GOP in his hip pocket, but what did he get for all that? Not even funding for ten more feet of wall. He got the tax cut Paul Ryan had been dreaming ofvsoncw he grew out of short pants.We can have ideological differences and that’s fine. But these tactics allow a small group to force the other 200+ members into actions that the majority disagree with. I don’t think that’s right, and said as much in a closed door meeting.— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 2, 2019
His utter incompetence is only one reason Trump failed. The other is that no President is Hercules, and Congress is not the Augean stables. It's a representative government, which means it presents views of people we don't agree with, and that keeps anyone from doing as they please. Even if a President could bend a river, it wouldn't cleanse the Capitol of representing disparate interests.
Much as I may like what Bernie proclaims, do we really need to go from one impossible set of expectations to the other? Because the rabid enthusiasm for Bernie looks a lot like the rabid enthusiasm for Trump. And that's not a good look.
And besides:
Just a reminder that public opinion is complicated. "Socialist" goals (e.g. greater income redistribution) are often quite popular. But "socialism" as a brand or label is really unpopular. https://t.co/A1cXjWwnRd pic.twitter.com/eZEkAyf9dW— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 3, 2019
Socialist programs are quite popular. Calling them "socialist," however, does not make socialism more popular. Not yet, anyway.
"Socialism" is a word which has been fatally damaged by
ReplyDeleteA. Marxists adopting it.
B. British Fabians
C. Naxis.
D. Various tiny fringe "Socialist" parties, many deputed to be Marxist but most of them cults of personality.
E. The use of all of the above by various right-wing people, groups and parties using those associations to vilify "socialists" and "socialism".
It was the totally unrealistic reaction of socialists and lefties to the ONE AND ONLY Democratic Soclialist of America to win an election to Congress, AOC as if that was the advent of the Great Socialist Millennium that convinced me the word is useless for any good purpose anymore.
I don't think even AOC can repair the damage to it. Bernie Sanders is going to be a disaster, I can feel it in my teeth like the neuralgia I get when the weather changes.
I was well into adulthood before I learned there was a difference between "socialism" and "communism." Both were considered evils that were opposed to the "freedom" of America (never defined against them as "capitalism." I had to learn "democracy" and "capitalism" and even "freedom" were not mere synonyms. The virtues of a public education in America in the '60's).
ReplyDeleteThe word still doesn't bother me, and labeling AOC doesn't really seem to be working, although OTOH I don't expect her to be our "savior," either.
And the enthusiasm for Bernie worries me. He has the support, by recent polling, of a minority of the Democratic party. If that's enough to win him the nomination, we may be facing four more years of Trump after all.