The recent announcement of a 2020 presidential run by Bernie Sanders has brought forth a new wave of conversation. Supporters of Senator Sanders are once again “feeling the Bern” as many democratic campaigns throttle up to take the White House.
While many of the expected socialist proposals are still there, a new talking point has emerged. It contends that America is, and was founded as a social democracy. Now before you scratch your head, don’t go to your history books and look for the chapter that covers Jefferson and Madison ironing out the details of socialism. It simply won’t be there.
I really do make every attempt to rationally handle progressives when we discuss our opposing ideologies. I have no problem with a Socratic dialogue of such ideas but claiming our founders established our country on a socialist platform is nothing more than revisionist tripe.
This new running narrative defines socialism as taxpayer funds being utilized collectively to benefit society despite income, contribution or ability. One question is, how is it collective if a segment of that society does not contribute? They go on to list an unending chain of services such as Medicare, social security, public schools, military, police, fire, court system, FDA, SNAP, infrastructure and a plethora of other services that fall under the umbrella of government.
Many of these could indeed be defined as socialistic but others not so much. It’s imperative to define some foundational premises here. First, most of the things on their lists are modern incarnations primarily created in the 20th and 21st century. The federal, state and municipal levels of government were actually incredibly limited in their scope prior to this. The changes in the last 80 to 100 years have resulted in socialist policies becoming entwined with a generally capitalist economy. That has produced this hybrid which has caused many of our current problems such as increasing debt, unsustainability of future spending and financial burdens to future generations. Socialism and capitalism, are antithetical to one another. Neither can accomplish their goals with influence of the other.
Second, any nobly intended government’s prime purpose is not to provide every means of existence but rather to protect the basic liberties of its citizens and to restrain the evil that some will do. This means a basic system of codified ordinances, law enforcement and a prosecutorial system to investigate, convict and carry out punitive actions for those found guilty in order to deter such crimes. It also means a military force to protect the sovereignty of our nation from threats foreign and domestic. This system of law and order is not a social construct but the very bedrock of how a civilization exists.
When the founders used the term “promote the general welfare” in the constitution’s preamble and taxation clause, it was never intended to be a legislative magic wand. Any powers of taxation were merely meant for the basic sustenance of the limited government structure. Future use of these powers to provide vast social programs and thus securing voter support would be something the founders abhorred.
What supporters of socialism need to understand is that governments at the federal, state and local or municipal levels serve very different purposes. They may have a system of law and order in common, but the roles change quickly after that. Concepts such as a public school or fire protection are best implemented at the local level where its own citizens can be more directly involved in the level of services they choose. These citizens have a more direct process to increase or decrease services as they see fit. If such services become too financially burdensome, then they can influence their representatives or vote to diminish or repeal a service. They are also free to move into another municipality where such services are more affordable or non-existent. This results in some degree of competition that promotes accountability and responsibility. If a particular local jurisdiction finds itself spending more than its citizenry can support, they are more likely than government at higher levels to control the excesses.
Advocates of socialism cannot make a historical case that America is a Social Democracy. It was and remains a Democratic Republic built on concepts of individual liberty in order to avoid authoritative State control. Today, the inevitable justification for massive social programs comes by claiming they are basic human rights. Free access to goods and services provided by force from another is not a human right. That would require suppression of someone else’s true rights.
When government demands more and more of our earnings for expansive social provisions, there comes a point when most will just succumb to the basic human desire to take freely. Whether my socialist friends will admit it or not, pure socialism does erode personal responsibility and ends up reducing overall production. That means less revenue to support such programs and that results in higher debt. It is a race to the bottom.
While socialism is the trendy philosophy du jour, most who claim it tend not to be fully invested in it. They will likely embrace the parts of capitalism that benefit them personally and then advance the cause of socialistic policy to provide for the less fortunate. It is not compassion to say we want to help others by confiscating from those who have more than us. That is not charity by any definition. It is emotive back patting.
For any business owners who support this tax and spend mentality, how much of your profits can be taken before it will harm your business and lifestyle? How long before you will be discouraged and want to draw water at the public trough yourself? When you do, will it only be temporary or will there be incentive to overcome those obstacles?
To come full circle, I’m not saying socialized communities are bad; quite the contrary. Families are the best example of successful social models. Most churches are groups of like-minded people that often pool resources to benefit one another or some outside their community. Some neighborhood developments put into a common pot to protect a common interest. There are clubs and organizations made up of people who work toward shared goals. The difference is that these are voluntary. No one has compelled them by authoritative force or gunpoint to contribute.
The case can also be made that these private benevolent entities will naturally do a better job of serving various needs as well as filling voids in our social safety nets. At the local level, we can freely support some degree of public services which may provide a basic communal benefit, but financial responsibility will dictate how much is sensible. It is also clear that the local level could never provide numerous services without it breaking the system. This is why most self-professing socialists are calling for National Socialism. Such a system needs a more authoritative source to take more from more people. Spending deficiencies are easier to lose perspective of and even easier to accumulate massive debt at a national level.
It is dangerous to democracy itself to vest so much power in politicians and bureaucrats who will inevitably use social spending as leverage to secure their power.
