Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democratic Socialists? Democrats Not Half That Good
The Republican National Committee recently dropped its resolution to brand the moderate pro-corporate Democratic Party “Socialists.” As the late, great Democratic Socialist leader Michael Harrington liked to tell it when he testified before a dying Senator Hubert Humphrey on the Humphrey-Hawkins Work Bill, that would theoretically guarantee every American a right to a job, Humphrey bluntly asked him “Is my bill socialism?” Harrington replied, “Senator, your bill’s not half that good.”
Here’s why the Democratic Party is also not half that good. Obama’s “Me too” bailout policy to the largest and most irresponsible banks and investment houses has nothing to do with socializing capital. Democratic Socialists believe in democratizing and socializing money matters. They favor credit unions and co-ops with democratically elected boards over large welfare checks to transnational corporations. In fact, there’s little difference between Obama’s approach to the big bankers and George W. Bush’s.
If the Democrats were European Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, they would have never allowed 20% of all U.S. workers and 47 million people in the U.S. to live without health care. They would have at least called for a general strike to shut down the system until the injustice was stopped.
If you want to look at the history of democratic socialism as a barometer for that esteemed label in American history, let’s start with the legendary Eugene Victor Debs. Unlike the cowardly Democratic Party and its then-leaders – John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who both supported Bush’s illegal imperialist occupation of Iraq to remain politically viable as presidential candidates – Debs went to jail to oppose World War I.
Not only that, he ran as a Socialist Party presidential candidate from jail and received a million votes defending the First Amendment. What was Debs’ great crime? Claiming the rich have always declared war and the poor and working class have always fought and died.
Historically, U.S. Socialist leaders like Debs, Norman Thomas, and Michael Harrington were not cowards hiding behind pragmatism and popularity polls. When virtually no U.S. politicians spoke on behalf of accepting Jewish immigrants from Nazi Germany during the Great Depression, Thomas fought for their admittance.
Martin Luther King, Jr. called Norman Thomas “the bravest man” he ever met. When Thomas gave his nominal blessing for the last remains of the Socialist Party to merge into the Democratic Party in 1960, he did not surrender his conscience. For example, he called John F. Kennedy “all profile and no courage,” particularly in regards to the President’s civil rights actions. In 1965, Thomas spoke at the first major anti-Vietnam War rally in Washington D.C. and announced he had come to “cleanse” the American flag, not to burn it.
Thomas spoke out and wrote a book against the torture of pacifists during World War I, asking the key question, “Is conscience a crime?” He understood that when you strung pacifists up by their thumbs, it was torture. I’m sure if he had ever been briefed on it, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allegedly was, he would have denounced it immediately.
Michael Harrington was the architect of the Great Society and the War on Poverty. His book, “The Other America,” stands as a lasting monument to the principles of Democratic Socialism. When both the Democrat and Republican Parties were ignoring the 22% of U.S. population living in poverty during the Eisenhower years, it was Harrington who documented their desperate plight.
Harrington later went on to champion the rights of the wretched of the Earth in his book “The Vast Majority.” He helped write the policy perspectives that tilted the European Social Democrats toward massive aid to Africa, Asia and South America.
Debs, Thomas and Harrington came to realize that democracy was more important than socialism and that decision-making from the bottom up was the key. To label the timid, triangulating Obama Democratic Party as Democratic Socialists is absurd. Not only is Obama not half as good as Debs, Thomas and Harrington, he’s not yet a pale imitation of FDR. And we can only dream that he would adopt the infrastructure programs and progressive tax policies of President Dwight Eisenhower from the 50s.
Perhaps the best we can do is raise the slogan demanding that Obama “Be like Ike.” America needs a Marshall Plan, that’s something an FDR or Ike would understand. Debs, on the other hand, would be calling for an army of a million men to arrest Bush and Cheney for crimes against humanity. And Debs would be talking about his desire to resurrect from the dead the more than a million dead Iraqis killed in a corporate capitalist war for oil.
That’s the legacy of American Democratic Socialism.
- Posted in
39 Comments so far
Show AllFDR and Eisenhower were not extremists but compromisers and negotiators just like Lincoln. Obama's trying to do just that so let's shut up and give him credit and a chance already. He has also picked a good Supreme Court nominee today so it's time for the extremist purist losers on both sides to shut their mouths and learn from Obama to compromise and negotiate and FEEL THE VICTORY !!
Let's give him a chance? I did; I voted for him. He is a complete and utter failure. The quote in the article about JFK being “'all profile and no courage'”
applies equally well to the incumbent.
With the anger of the American people at his back, Obama could have restructured the financial sector in the same manner as Franklin Roosevelt. He could have busted up the megacorporations as Teddy Roosevelt did. Instead, he saw to it that everyone in the US will continue to suffer from the credit crisis EXCEPT the very people who created it. He has institutionalized corporate irresponsibility.
His about faces on mountaintop removal and Guantanamo are just two more glaring examples of the failure by Obama to live up to his rhetoric.
q
Give it some time and patience. They're working out the kinks. Feel the victory !
Yes, they're working out the kinks in the system that keep Wall Street from stealing even more of our wealth.
Some victory.
q
Obama is no FDR or Eisenhower.
Single payer health care is the test.
Whose side is Obama on?
Obama is a wall street corporate toady. The Democrats have replaced the GOP as the party of corporate power. But then even Hitler's Nazis would look like socialists to the Neo-Republi-Cons.
Corporate & imperial, with flair. He's dropped single payer while acknowledging it as the best system.
Nebraska Nathan = Joe hope?
Naah, completely different writing style.
"Let's shut up" and play follow-the-leader? No, thanks, I had enough of that under the previous occupant of the Oval Office. The Bushbots viewed themselves as subjects of the Dear Leader, rather than citizens of a democratic republic. It's unfortunate that there are Obamabots who seem to think the same way. They forget that Obama himself said "WE are the ones that WE have been waiting for", not "I am the one that YOU have been waiting for".
Obama made a good pick for the Supreme Court, but there are many other decisions that he has made that weren't very good, especially on civil liberties and giving a nearly blank check to Wall Street. He needs to be praised when he's right, but to be criticized when he's wrong. The right wing is not going to just "shut their mouths". They are going to keep pressuring him to move further in their direction, and as we've seen with Dick Cheney on torture, they are having some success. If we "extremist purist losers" on the left just shut our mouths, Obama will only get pressure from the right. You won't like the way that turns out.
Three cheers for the "extremist purist losers" of the left like Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas! Although they never got close to winning the White House, they influenced the two major parties to adopt their agenda: Female suffrage, the abolition of child labor, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and the public works programs of the New Deal.
The voice of the totalitarian--when you confront an opposing viewpoint, you instruct its advocate to SHUT UP!
Lincoln was such a "compromiser" that he fought the bloodiest war ever seen up to that point to save the union and free the slaves. He was such a "compromiser" that when he saw that McClelland wouldn't fight, he fired him and kept looking until he found in Grant someone who would.
FDR was such a "compromiser" that he launched the greatest war in the history of the world to vanquish fascism.
We need not compromise with the Wall Street crooks and their stooges in Washington. We must wage battle against these poisoners of the body politic as surely and as UNcompromisngly as Lincoln and FDR battled the evils of their day.
We need someone who will stand up to the bankers with uncompromising words like these: "Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True, they have tried. But their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
Yes, the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."
Yes, just that kind of uncompromising declaration of war against the profit motive and the way in which it wrecks civilized values. Wouldn't it be nice if the United States could have a president capable of uttering such RADICAL, UNCOMPROMISING truths?
Well, we did once. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Those words are from his first inaugural address. His deeds were just as radical for their time as his words: creation of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, the right to organize unions (Wagner Act), Glass Steagall, WPA, etc., etc.
Compare this boldness of vision and action with Obama's sniveling temporizing before his corporate benefactors.
To even speak the names Lincoln, FDR, and Obama in the same breath is a calumny against the courage and greatness of the first two, and a sad, flimsy PR ploy on behalf of the last.
Pass it around:
Green for All - started by Van Jones for urban attention to formation of Green Jobs Program WRITE your reps:
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5379/t/2457/tellafriend.jsp?tell_a_friend_KEY=800&key=3397192
If the left shuts up, O simply goes right. There's no compromise in that.
Those who imagine that O is a closet progressive should shout to the rooftops and force him to the left. If he wants to go, he can be happy and we can be happy. If he would rather go right, at least we can be happy.
The whole RNC "Democrat Socialist Party" re-brand effort / fiasco is emblematic of a GOP that is at once arrogant and ignorant (a truly frightening, yet hilarious combination in a dark humor sort of way). I would venture to guess that if the deluded minions of the GOP ever spent several years in a Social Democratic state, they would probably come to quite like that governance model's social benefits. That is if they are being honest with themselves, they are not of the wealthy, & have a reasonable hold on sanity.
Policy that favored the working class materialized during the FDR and Eisenhower Administrations because the miltary industrial media complex was just warming up during that era. The US electorate therefore had not been brainwashed to support fascist policy that has dominated the US for the past 40 years.
In 1969 corporations paid 29% of the US income tax burden. Today they pay 6%. Within 5 to 10 years they will pay 0%. During the same 40 year period corporate welfare has increased substantially. This trend has increased the tax burden for the rest of us. The more taxes we pay, the more taxpayer money the US Government has available to dole out in corporate welfare.
Until the corporate taxation issue garners as much media coverage as torture, wars, and other issues, the US' descent to becoming a fascist third world nation will continue to accelerate.
Sioux Rose
RAY: Great points, as usual.
Ray,
Allow me to quibble with your analysis of history.
Policy that favored the working class materialized during the FDR administration because communism was successful and going strong in Russia at that time while 25% of Americans where in bread lines. Communism was a threat that needed to be countered.
The Eisenhower administration rewarded the victors (with the support of all Americans) of WWII. The 1950s was the golden age of America. Of course, Eisenhower warned us of the growing power and threat of the Military-Industrial complex,
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
But you are spot on the tax issue.
If by going strong, you mean that Stalin was sending any and all dissenters to camps and gulags, conducting purges on anyone who looked crosseyed at him, outright executing others, deporting ethnic minorities ranging from Germans to Turks, stoking anti semitism, not to mention having Trotsky assassinated, along with causing widespread famine, yes, communism was going strong in the USSR during FDR's administration.
It doesn't help the left when leftists try to downplay Stalin's atrocities.
One could argue that FDR was trying to counter fascist populism instead of communism.
I don't see anyone downplaying the crimes against humanity committed by Stalin. Widespread knowledge of his abuses did not come about until after he was dead.
q
There was an anti Stalin left, Trotsky for an example, before Stalin died. It was just that too many on the left did not want to think about Stalin's atrocities.
And it wasn't as if the repression of writers, intellectuals, artists, such as Meyerhold, Mikhoels, Anna Akhmatova, Osip Mandelstam were hidden. They were there for those who were willing to see.
We declare these truths to be self evident, that all men are born subservient to the Corporation and that these Corporations have the inalienable rights of profit, profit and the pursuit of profits. That to secure these rights governments are instituted by men deriving their powers from the consent of the Corporations for which men serve.
I have yet to meet, or read the writings of a sane conservative. They have always been dangerous psychopaths, especially in groups. Giving them power is like giving Timothy McVeigh power.
Barry Goldwater was probably the closest thing to a "sane conservative" and he wanted to nuke Viet Nam.
Because conservative political values consistently run counter to the welfare of the general population, they sort of have to be psychopathic - not to mention sociopathic, paranoid, insufferably selfish, and sexually impotent.
q
Part of the glaring problem with the argument "Obama is a socialist": it reduces the effectiveness of the progressive to challenge the president while also sending the false message that Obama is leading a progressive movement.
On the surface the less informed liberal would assume Obama is a progressive and potentially becomes less likely to challenge the Obama Administration's overtly corporatist underpinnings.
Left viewpoints struggle for any traction. Anything left of Obama must seem extremist to an unfocused eye. Far too often left-wing Opeds feed into the cycle when attacking the "right wing, backward rural-types" as opposed to attacking the false flags flow in front of us by a corporate dominance that strips us of our land and of our treasury.
-Part of the glaring problem with the argument "Obama is a socialist": it reduces the effectiveness of the progressive to challenge the president while also sending the false message that Obama is leading a progressive movement.
This rings true. Can you name an issue on which Obama is trying to do something "leftist" or "socialist". From here I can't see any, but perhaps there is some domestic issue I am not aware of?
I don't know if even us grassroots progressives and liberals are even united on pushing for the people's socialism given a lot of misunderstanding on the issue of regulated capitalism vs unfettered on Sunday's thread on this site. Bring up the fact that not all capitalism is bad and you'll get swiftboated by the self-proclaimed "socialists" as was the case on Sunday with a lot of negative postings. If the pure socialists would open up a bit and try to reach out and convince us that we'll be comfortable with it then maybe socialism has a chance of winning but somehow it seems to make them happy to rudely attack and condescend others who don't completely agree. Therefore, there's no chance that we will see total socialism be the norm until we first switch from unfettered to regulated capitalism and keep it steady.
-If the pure socialists would open up a bit and try to reach out and convince us that we'll be comfortable with it then maybe socialism has a chance of winning but somehow it seems to make them happy to rudely attack and condescend others who don't completely agree
Yes I've noticed that. Obviously, as a citizen of the world, I'm more concerned with US foreign affairs, but I think you have hit the nail on the head with the problem of the demonization of socialism, on one side, and the socialist purism on the other.
I've not seen a country where terms like "liberal" and "socialist" have been so maligned and where at the same time crony capitalism and protectionism is able to mascarade as the invisible hand of the free market.
All 'capitalism' is bad for the simple reason that capitalism is, essentially, getting more money by just having money -- not by producing anything of tangible value. There is some subtlety in the way these words are used, but that's the bottom line: the means of production is privately owned -- instead of owned by the workers and society, meaning that it canbe accumulated, and traded for political power which is used to further consolidate that ownership, in a never-ending cycle until it all collapses.
That said, a certain amount can be tolerated if sufficient regulation is in place, but whenever money is made without an commensurate increase in tangible weath it's a drain on society and the economy.
In a socialistic society private ownership of the means of production is possible, but growth of money means a growth in production as well -- even if some people get a larger share of that tangible wealth. Power, however, is distributed on the basis of merit, not on simply having money, even if simply inherited from one's parents. Capitalism is not a meritocracy, and getting rich is not necessarily coupled with production of real, tangible wealth, but can be obtained from just gaming the system, or through fraud. That's the heart of the matter regardless of which words one might use. Capitalism is about accumulating money by individuals whether they produce or not and socialism is about increasing real wealth for the benefit of all the people and society.
Debs went to jail to oppose World War I.
Was it not Woodrow Wilson who imprisoned Debs? Wilson was the last president before George Wanker Bush who without question qualified as a PUNK. He looked like Mitch McConnell, with Dick Cheney's racist, junkyard dog I'll kill you just for hell of it attitude. Obysmal is beginning to show signs of Wilsonian behavior.
there is no "left" in america as bob points out
there is no democracy in america as chomsky has pointed out so many times
all there is - is the fawning corporate media as ray mcgovern calls them spinning thier fantasy world of apple pie and democracy loving christians doing god's work
up is down - love is hate - war is peace
no health care is better than some health care
corporations on welfare and captolism for the citizens
torture is good, so good its not even torture or rather its "legal"
i remind cheney that hanging niggers was "legal" at one time
The Reich-wing uses the socialist word as code to mean the same as communist/n-gger.
Fitrakis is spot on in his assessment. Also, some posters have supported the idea that we have to give him time. That is 100% the wrong thing to do. Do you thing the moneyed interests are giving him time? Not at all. The are getting seats at the table. What we have to do on the Left is to keep mobilizing around Out Now in Irag and Afghanistan, keep working to get single-payer on the table, not settle for anything but the EFCA passed as now written, renegotiation of the FTA's, starting with Panama, to protect workers in both countries of these agreements, along with the environments of both in the language, and eliminate the tax haven status of Panama, while calling for at leasst the minimum standards of international standards for workers and child labor rights, keep pushing for accountability of the past administration on a number of issues (lying to get us into war and torture), financial regulations and oversight and the reinstating of Glass-Steagal, the bailout of the working people and the poor and not giveaways to the corporations that got us in this mess, etc, etc.
Raising a long, sustained ruckus is how we make not only Obama better than he imagines himself, but more importantly how we make ourselves better as engaged citizens who make the democracy work for us rather than us for them at the top.
Forget socialism - ain't never gonna happen. May have had a chance before greed went from acute tumor to national epidemic. Now? No way.
Here's a better plan: we cut a deal with the "elites" - you can still steal and hoard, just 10% less than usual.
That would be more than enough for us to take care of the other 290M people in the country, as well as enough to keep us off your backs. Seriously - the vast majority of us will ignore you if our bills are paid, we got decent "free" health care, and we don't have to work until we're 90.
Elites who can't dial-down their need for more-at-any-cost will be institutionalized and treated until their SuperGreedism is no longer a security threat to the nation.
I love it!!Tony
Hello Bob,
Good post. Your book looks interesting. I have a question. You mentioned extensively the work of Michael Harrington. What you did not mention is that Harrington founded Democratic Socialists of America- an organization still working night and day to bring democratic socialism to the U.S.
They are at www.dsausa.org
My question. If you are explaining democratic socialism, why not mention those who are working on this project? Even Business Week has found us.
Duane Campbell
Maybe you could update the Wikipedia article on Democratic Socialists of America to actually define its platform and contrasts with other leftist parties.
It's a good platform, but the big problem is the DSA's support for the Demoks, who wrote endless blank checks for illegal/unnecessary wars, and stood by while a million Iraqis lost their lives under US occupation.
Why not break away from the Demoks and join up with the Greens? Given the Demoks' radical lurch to the right, the only productive vote is a third party vote.
Tommytoons
I think the articule was great and very inspiring. I think Obama would really like to reform America so that more could enjoy the wealth of this country, but I'm afraid that he just won't do it because once the course is set for a Socialist reform in this country his political contributions will dry up. He is No FDR. He may be a Constitutional Lawyer but he is another Politican that is cut from the cloth of Wall Street elites.
Neither the Democratic nor Republican Parties are open to a truely Socialist government, too much money would be lost to them to do so. The change must come from outside of the two traditional Parties Power Structure. It must come from a verified Socialist movement that is intent upon teaching what a Socialist is and what a Socialist is not. There needs to be a massive education of the American working class that outreaches not just the East Coast, where the majority of Democratic Socialists meetings are held, but the message of Socialism must be advanced in every part of the Country to make an impact on what Socialism would do to the Average working stiff in this country. Democratic Socialism needs a leader of national stature, without such a voice heard on TV, the Radio on the Internet, Socialism will be viewed with the lens of the past and tainted with the ill-conceived and incorrect label of being "Communist". Democratic Socialism is or could be a ray of hope for the Working class in this Country. A recent poll taken showed that 20% of Americans would be in favor of a Socialist Government and another 27% would like to know more about Socialism.
This is a broad cry for the members of Democratic Socialism to initiate new outreach programs to educate, inform and enlighten this Country on the benefits of a Socialistic reform of the Government. Socialism is the Progressive Liberals strongest natural Ally against the current government's programs of helping out the banks first, making sure that every American has the ability to see a Doctor and maintain their health insurance in a single payer venue. Socialism, would end the Wars in Iraq and Afganistan and bring our Troops home. The crimes of the Bush/Cheney years would be published and the ones who broke the law would be brought to trial and punished.
I look forward to a National debate on the merits of Democratic Socialism and I hope the day comes when we have a true National Party that would rival the current choices we now see in all three branches of our Government.
Nebraska writes...
"so it's time for the extremist purist losers on both sides to shut their mouths and learn from Obama to compromise and negotiate and FEEL THE VICTORY !!" Do you actually think that Obama will stand up against corporate America after surrounding himself with corporate stooges like Summers and Geitner?
What I love about corporate America including the mainstream media, is their ability to convince average Americans that each of tcorporate America's carefuly selected candidates represent real change and hope.
Give me a break! Unless a leader speaks out for universal healthcare, ending the military industrial complex, ending our addiction to fossil fuels and reversing the trend to imprison our poor (7.1 million Americans are in prison, on parole or probation- 25% of the world's population!), then the candidate is an imposter.
Wake up and smell the coffee, You've been had!
I appreciate this article for its short historical review. It's a refreshing article to read; greatly appreciating to learn that there were great and [real] democratic socialists, or socialists who were democratic, in the USA.
And that history will hopefully help to wake up all of the people who've foolishly (or worse) repeated for years that Ralph Nader and, more recently, Cynthia McKinney running in presidential campaigns hurts the Dem. Party's nominee; these people who also argue as if voting for evil, that is, "lesser" evil, is better than voting for worse evil, but while being rather wholly unable to actually prove that the "lesser" is really that. It's clearly no "lesser" in the case of Barack Obama and his administration, and really wasn't significantly lesser with Bill Clinton and his administration, either; but we have the many cheerleaders for the extremely corrupt Dem. Party always pretending that what's really no lesser is supposedly lesser. They'll hopefully come to finally wake up; hopefully. I can only hope.