Socialism And Bernie Sanders
By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
My hope was that Bernie Sanders would remain a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency well into the election season, and not only because I think he would be easier to beat than Hillary Clinton. (Though, I confess, that is one of the reasons.) I thought it would be a teachable moment.
I envisioned the eventual Republican nominee and conservative commentators seizing the moment to educate the voters, especially younger voters, about the disasters that socialists have created in countries such as Cuba and Venezuela, all their slogans about fairness and equality notwithstanding. Q.E.D. You can’t redistribute the wealth when no one has created it.
Unfortunately, things didn’t turn out as I had hoped. Whatever you think of left-wing activists, they are not stupid. Sanders and his supporters came up with a strategy that cut off the critics at the pass.
I saw how it works on a recent edition of the Fox News program The Five. Greg Gutfeld, one of the conservative commentators on the show, argued that he hopes the Democrats pick Sanders because all that the Republicans will have to do in that case is point to Venezuela, where “the socialists can’t even keep toilet paper on the shelves.”
Clever — and accurate. But Juan Williams, who takes the liberal position in regard to whatever is being discussed, didn’t miss a beat. “What Sanders wants,” he replied, “is not what you see in Venezuela, it is the Scandinavian model, like Sweden.”
This is what Sanders means when he says that he is a “democratic socialist.” He is making clear that he is not proposing anything like the old Soviet Union, but merely a system that uses high taxes, especially on the rich, to provide benefits such as “free” medicine and college education. This last promise is what makes him attractive to younger audiences faced with the prospect of burdensome college loans.
So our way of raising the socialist issues will have to be something different. We will have to make the case that there is a danger — a real danger, with many examples in history — that socialism will lead to dictatorial rule, even if its supporters insist — in all sincerity — that is not their intention. Sweden and Denmark exist; but so did the Soviet Union, so did Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. We can’t assume that if we put a socialist in power that we will not get end up with someone like Stalin.
Let us concede that a socialist can be motivated by a humanitarian impulse to improve life for his fellowman by redistributing the material wealth of society in a just manner. Agreed: There is a difference between Stalin and George Bernard Shaw. Still, it cannot be denied that there is something about socialism that often leads to tyranny. Young people who profess their intention is to create a democratic socialist system need to confront that fact.
Often enough to matter, there are forces set loose in socialist systems that tend toward dictatorial rule. Tyrannical socialist leaders are not outliers. History is full of them: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the succession of drab-looking Communist thugs in charge of the former Soviet satellites. And Hitler. Yes, Hitler. Nazi means national socialist.
There is nothing in the genes of Russians, the Chinese, and Cubans that made them more predisposed toward totalitarian socialism than the people of the United States. We have latent totalitarians among us. One has only to think back to the congressional hearing where Maxine Waters, the Democratic congresswoman from California, snarled at oil company executives and threatened to “nationalize” their businesses to get the point. (You can get a clip of the confrontation on YouTube.)
Or to how Barack Obama’s old Chicago associate William Ayers defends his terrorist activities in the late 1960s. You can watch Ayers in action at: lonelyconservative.com/2008/11/chris-cuomo-grills-bill-ayers/.
There is reason to fear and work against people like this assuming positions of power and influence in society, which a socialist system will do.
The historical pattern is undeniable. Time and time again, socialist leaders who begin by professing their opposition to totalitarianism gravitate toward police state brutality. It happens when they find themselves unable to deliver through democratic means on their promises of prosperity, jobs, education, guaranteed health care, and dignified housing for the masses.
When they cannot provide those things — as is happening in Venezuela, as we speak — the pattern has been for socialist leaders to seize their country’s farms, factories, and mines. And then, when the nationalized farms, factories, and mines fail to provide the output needed to feed and pay and house the masses, government-appointed overseers are sent in to crack the whip. Recalcitrant managers and workers are sent to prison camps. The police are sent to quell the mobs of workers who find themselves without any hope for gainful employment.
Government officials, who once waxed eloquent about the need for a fairer distribution of the country’s resources and “good jobs for all,” carry out the policies of the new police state established to deal with these crises. It is a pattern that prevailed in much of the world in the 20th century, from the former Soviet Union, to China, to Cuba. We’ll see what happens in the coming months in Venezuela.
The burden of proof for why we do not have to worry about such things in the United States is on the studiedly earnest young folks and aging hippies smiling behind the podium when Bernie Sanders speaks.
