Republicans are Socialists
Today compassion looks like the only universal trait agreed upon among socialists in defining the philosophy, but no party monopolizes compassion
Talk of socialism (or democratic socialism) in the United States remains surprisingly active. Aided by politicians and media on both sides (but mostly Bernie and AOC), shifting tides associate Democrats more with socialism than days past, but Republicans remain unshakably capitalist. Democrats still mostly have a favorable view of capitalism, but the socialist contingent is loud and growing.
I’m not an expert on socialism or capitalism. Discussions of these topics stretch across the globe and far back in time, and I’m not looking to wade into the debate of socialism’s or capitalism’s merits in theory or practice. Still, given the rising fervor and favorability of socialism and socialists in the United States, and the division that can cause, I want to highlight some concerns I have about how we talk to one another in having this discussion.
I’ve observed a general heuristic that goes something like: Democrats support more socialism; socialism is compassionate; therefore, Democrats are compassionate. Republicans support capitalism; capitalism is evil; therefore, Republicans are evil.
I reject this entirely.
No party monopolizes evil. No party monopolizes compassion. No party monopolizes capitalism. No party monopolizes socialism. The lines are blurred. Reality is complex, and these simplified morality matrixes impede our ability to understand one another, including by obstructing the simple belief that those with different views come from a place of good faith.
As a small contribution to try and foster understanding, I’ve written this to briefly outline why for some Republicans the term “socialism” (including democratic socialism) has been diluted into irrelevance, essentially implying a vague sense of social compassion. In that context, “socialism” appears meaningless because no party or school of thought monopolizes compassion.
To explain this perspective I’ll (i) remind everyone that politicians and pundits are trying to divide us and we must resist those forces, (ii) discuss my frustration with the vaguery of defining modern socialism, (iii) outline why the United States is already seen by some as a democratic socialist nation, leaving them confused about what further changes are desired, (iv) address the recklessness of a party presuming a monopoly on compassion at the foundation of its calls for socialism, (v) argue that in the modern vernacular, Republicans are socialists because they are compassionate and caring, and (vi) suggest we drop the term “socialism” altogether because it’s useless if everyone who cares about others is a socialist because in that case, we all are.
As a final introductory note, please understand that while this writing focuses on a heuristic derogating towards Republicans and offers some perspective on why widespread adoption of the term socialism concerns them, I know that there are many similar and equally destructive political oversimplifications floating around that are harmful to Democrats.
Entrenching political enmities, a favorite pastime of Democrats, Republicans, and pundits, but does us no good
When a society is trying to resolve large political questions, such as shifting its underlying political philosophy, without goodwill between its opposing forces things can turn ugly. Despite this, rhetoric and pundits tell us that Republicans think Democrats want socialism because they’re hell-bent on controlling citizens’ lives for malicious purposes. Former President Trump said at his CPAC speech in 2019 that Democrat lawmakers “want to replace individual rights with total government domination.” At the same time, Democrats and pundits often present a tone suggesting Republicans champion capitalism out of selfishness and greed. In this context, each party’s claims of openness to working across the aisle are rendered absurd. Am I to believe politicians and their parties are driven primarily by malicious intent? I won’t, but many readily will.
It’s shockingly easy to divide people politically and persuade them to hate and believe they are hated, often based on information that prudent minds would not consider credible. Political movements that push for (democratic) socialism in capitalist societies foster fertile grounds for misunderstandings of political motivations that can cleave society further apart, which is the last thing we need.
I’m inclined to believe incompetence is more rampant than evil and conflicts arise when people don’t bother to understand one another, which is a reality born out of incompetence and reliance on oversimplified heuristics (and social media). Unfortunately, these misunderstandings become entrenched and sturdy foundations to layer on political enmities. That situation worsens when people attach specific terms and ways of thinking with historical connotations.
Despite what we each may think of capitalism and socialism, we cannot let politicians and pundits fill us with entrenched enmity for others based on their political orientation. We must resist that urge if we are to continue moving society forward in the face of such political movements.
Modern socialism philosophy is defined so vaguely it’s hard for anyone to know what they’re supporting or opposing
I suspect most voters aren’t entirely clear what they’re opposing or supporting in socialism or “democratic socialism” or how either of these systems would function. I and many others are confused, too. Despite the variations in what many proponents believe socialism entails, many Republicans reasonably believe that notwithstanding claims of leaving “behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history,” (democratic) socialism will not remain democratic over the long run given their colloquial associations with the term “socialism.”
Most Democrats today would likely balk at the idea that socialism refers to a system with centralized (government) control of specific means of production and planning, as Rand Paul and others have suggested. (The type of system that frays nerves with the prospect for excessive government control.) For people who support this definition, the phrase “means of production” varies in scope. As an example, one New York State senator believes socialism means that energy, housing, health care, education, finance, and transportation should be under public control and not run for profit.
Today, if a Republican were to ascribe this manner of thinking to a Democrat who expresses support for socialism in a debate, some might think that Republican is acting in bad faith. In reality, the Democratic Socialists of America state explicitly in their explanation of what democratic socialism is that they want us all to “collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation.” (Notice the list is not exhaustive; Republicans sure notice.)
Yes, it is unlikely that many of the 25% of Americans who view socialism as positively as they do capitalism, or the 70% of Millennials that would consider voting for a socialist, are this extreme. From my conversations, reading, watching pundits, and being shocked by the inconsiderate posts on social media, it seems socialism is more likely characterized, in some way, as trying to make society better so that its operations meet a particular set of ideal criteria. Unfortunately, this definition isn’t very helpful because the crux of the issue is the chosen criteria you’re using to define the ideal. It is problematic to describe socialism this way (as if it is independent of the selected ideals), particularly because it doesn’t effectively distinguish it from capitalism or the current state of the U.S. economy.
First, capitalists try to improve society by ensuring that certain criteria are satisfied, but when problems arise, capitalists often see government resolution as a last (or near-last) resort. For many capitalists, social growth is primarily a by-product of the welfare gains and (ideally) more comfortable lives. Second, as a mixed economy, the United States is already on the spectrum between socialist and capitalist. By no measure is it purely capitalist. You could argue with a straight face that it’s already practicing democratic socialism (just not to the degree certain politicians desire).
Another conception of socialism might be a “feeling of connectedness and compassion for other human beings.” It strikes me that this definition, like the former, smacks of unintentional but incomprehensibly aloof arrogance rooted in an assumed monopoly on compassion and care. If that’s the case, then why (and I’m oversimplifying a little) do Republicans give more to charity? Is it because of a lesser sense of self-reported compassion?
Evidently, socialism means many things to many people, and for that reason, the philosophy doesn’t foster unity the way that specific government spending programs do. Continuing to use the term socialism (or democratic socialism) to describe a desire for more public expenditure (if there isn’t a desire to socialize any means of production), or workers’ rights, impedes our ability to settle policy debates.
Maybe a centrally planned economy is what the Bernie Bros and the “squad” want — some of their rhetoric and the explicit statements of the Democratic Socialists of America renders it reasonable to believe this. But, maybe they want “not only equal, universal and obligatory education, a social health service, progressive taxation and religious tolerance, but also secular education, the abolition of national and racial discrimination, the equality of women, freedom of the press and of assembly, the legal regulation of labour conditions, and a social security system.” It’s unclear. Aside from ongoing work to improve access to quality education and healthcare (mainly driven by private sector innovation) and address lingering issues rooted in prejudice, the other goals have been substantially achieved (though imperfectly enforced by the courts or carried out by feckless bureaucracy). This is why we don’t know what the socialism or democratic socialism they’re calling for looks like. Still, there is a loud clamor for change.
At the highest level, it looks to me like today socialism just means showing compassion through spending policy. Well, if compassion is wanting more spending on, and work to advance, progressive policies, that sounds more like progressive policy spending than socialism. Perhaps we can call this philosophy compassionate capitalism or progressive capitalism? (Something with fewer negative connotations than socialism.)
Some think the United States is already practicing democratic socialism and wonder what other changes socialists want
Many Republicans think then the United States already looks like a nation of democratic socialism — there are already a plethora of social spending programs and entitlements in place and federal income taxes are anything but low. To them, calling for a change to democratic socialism is calling for more spending programs where the only outstanding questions are affordability and how society will look generations from now. It’s part of why there is confusion over what radical change is still needed (and Democrats disagree over what changes are still needed too).
If socialists propose big changes like nationalizing industries in their shift to socialism in the United States, we need to understand that transition with specificity. If socialists are not making changes of that nature, we need to understand what socialists want to change (or if they are only calling for more social spending) other than the budget.
Without substantive details of the long-term plans, it’s very unclear which laws (democratic) socialists would change and create to manifest their goals, making it hard to analyze how society might evolve following their changes. The Devil is in the details and it’s reasonable to be nervous about such murky policy and massive spending plans coupled with a term of political philosophy attached to such terrifying downsides littered throughout history. It’s not enough to say that socialism is a process of making policies then reviewing them, making them better, so there can’t be a blueprint, because that is already how policy is made — so Republicans ask again, what is the desired change (aside from increased social spending)?
Most people have experienced enough government bureaucracy to understand it is routinely inefficient and rage-inducing from the “customer” perspective. People know that they get upset with customer service at big companies, but it’s still usually less painful than dealing with (after finally getting hold of) government customer service. Dealing with a local business’s customer service is often even better (or, at least, feels better).
For many Republicans, these simple experiences demonstrate that consistently relying on more government bureaucracy to solve peoples’ problems is irrational (but they understand that in certain cases it’s the right choice). This assessment of trade-offs and the resulting decision to support the path one thinks better serves society is an act of compassion and Republicans won’t abandon that decision unless they understand what they’re abandoning it for.
The idea that compassion is synonymous with a desire to shift to (democratic) socialism is a divisive and hyperbolic claim of monopoly on virtue
I mentioned that today, being a socialist seems to be more about being compassionate, caring, and improving others’ lives than it does a specific economic and political organization system. This is peculiar because Western democracies, including the United States, are littered with compassionate and caring programs aimed at improving people's lives. Western democracies are not strictly capitalist. They layer their capitalist fundamentals with social programs and comprehensive regulations to wilfully rectify perils, injustices, and perverse incentives alive in capitalism. They try to fix these issues because, like any system, capitalism is imperfect.
U.S. socialists no doubt believe that the U.S. system is nowhere near adequate and their form of socialism would mean a better life for all more quickly and more completely than by any other means. There’s no doubt this belief comes from a noble place or that these people are dreamers trying to help others. Most may not want a full-scale overhaul of the economic system, like a shift towards government control of the means of production, just a more significant tax burden to partially offset a more robust public spending program to entrench a little more compassion (equity) in social systems and institutions.
As I’ve said, we’re all guessing at the specifics because if they’re seeking democratic socialism and not socialism, the real question is, how does the difference between these two systems manifest and endure in law? The current system is anything but pure capitalism, and if democratic socialism occupies the center between capitalism and socialism, we can’t be far from that midpoint now.
Generally, we’d call the U.S. a mixed economy, like other Western democracies, with some having a more significant tilt towards government as a social actor. Democrats seem to want to force a more significant affinity for the role of government in the U.S. economy. Many Republicans see that as a potential path towards pure socialism that could eventually couple with restricted civil rights and freedoms. Is that outcome guaranteed? No, but there are enough historical instances of socialism leading to destitution that many reasonable Republicans (and independents) are not comfortable testing it out.
Even if Democrats are calling for more traditional socialism than they wish to acknowledge, it’s not reasonable to believe that Democrats (or “the Libs”) have visions of an autocratic terror. Consider the evil sometimes attributed to Democrats, including a desire to control peoples’ lives, based on acts of others in history (none of whom came of age in the United States in the 90s/00s ). It’s not reasonable; it’s childish.
I also refuse to believe that voting Republicans (who account for at least 29% of the voting U.S. population) overwhelmingly “don’t care” about others. This notion doesn’t pass the smell test. If you think this, I implore you to ask yourself whether that’s a reasonable belief or if you’ve fallen victim to a punishing heuristic. You wouldn’t think it’s appropriate for people to believe that Bernie wants his policies deployed for evil aims, and you would be right.
No party has a monopoly on compassion, virtue, or evil, and any claim to the contrary is bad faith hyperbole.
As compassionate and caring people looking to improve others’ lives, Republicans are socialists
Republicans care for and take care of others, too. They have compassion and work to implement and improve policies to increase living standards and overall wellbeing. In the U.S. vocabulary, this makes them socialists, democratic socialists, or whatever, really, as long as they have plans to spend money to help people.
Still, Republican socialism is distinct from Democrat socialism. The distinction lies primarily in wherein society’s web of governmental and social organization's responsibility for the “socialist” (i.e., compassionate) acts of society are vested. Republicans use different social institutions for socialist initiatives, preferring to vest this responsibility with families and local communities (i.e., neighbors, church groups, local organizations, and municipal governments). Republicans generally see this as a more efficient and steady approach to rectifying social inequities — a belief that they back up with generous charitable giving.
Reasonable people can disagree on where responsibilities for resolving specific issues should be vested in the web of organizations and institutions. Some duties are necessarily federal (defense, trade, immigration, etc.), and the state and other institutions (municipal, not-for-profits, etc.) best handles other issues. It’s not worth thinking another person is evil because they believe it’s best to vest these responsibilities at a different location in the social structure. That data point alone isn’t enough to know evil, and we all need to be better at behaving in ways that acknowledge this truth.
Democrat platforms often center around creating large-scale social spending programs at the state and federal levels. While Republicans are guilty of fiscal excesses they profess to detest, they’re seemingly less willing to solve every problem by writing new laws, adding bureaucracy, and spending money, particularly at the federal level. Both parties’ approaches have downfalls, but both approaches are born of compassion and are therefore socialist by today’s standards.
The Republican approach (all other things equal) tolerates more and persistent economic disparity in an attempt to raise the bottom as much as possible. In contrast, Democrats’ strategy moves the nucleus of socialist efforts further from citizens’ localities to more centralized power blocks to realize efficiency gains and broaden the scope of delivery. To Republicans, it seems that Democrats get out over their skis too often with lofty ambitions, hoodwinking voters by promising the moon and the stars when they cannot reasonably deliver. Republicans are guilty of this, but not usually related to major spending promises. Republicans may not promise the moon and the stars, but it’s not because they don’t care; it’s because they do, and they know false hopes create disappointment.
If everyone’s a socialist, let’s drop the term
Crying for socialism or democratic socialism and proselytizing about how much easier life would be if only the government had more power and the rich would pay their fair share allows unrealistic visions of the society to dominate political discourse. It also prevents the resolution of social ails. This claim exemplifies the Democrats getting out over their skis. Claims like these create an environment where the government can more easily relinquish civil liberties while riding waves of populism combined with the unspoken threat of force.
Republicans have legitimate fears based on what has happened in large societies that have embraced socialism throughout history. The opaque nature of the legislative universe that democratic socialists desire is concerning not necessarily because of what it might say but because it isn’t clear. It can’t just be a desire to consistently work to review and improve laws and policies as issues arise — as noted above, we’re already doing that. Regardless of the initially noble intentions of our contemporaries, the generations of leadership churn and generational amnesia will erode the influence of those intentions without appropriate checks and balances.
Many Republicans believe the eventual outcome of a slowly but steadily increasing state role in society (in whatever form that takes under modern socialism) will be a more autocratic government protecting fewer civil liberties and a depressed sense of community. That’s the direction that Republicans fear the term takes us in over the decades, over the centuries. They believe this because they haven’t seen any plans that would convince them otherwise.
Suppose people aren’t talking about harnessing specific means of production for a public purpose. Suppose it’s the case that “in the 21st century … socialism is not describing a particular set of economic rules and government policies, some clearly-defined system that must be implemented according to a plan,” instead, it describes certain principles for the political and economic system to follow. Then, suppose the only practical change they’re talking about is increasing government spending on social programs without any defined strategy or plan for implementation of fundamental changes in the economic or political organization of the country. If that is the case, they need to find another word for their philosophy because viewing “socialism” as a political monopoly on compassion, care, and the desire to improve people’s lives is irrational and destructive.
If that’s all it takes to be a socialist, take care and exercise compassion in your actions, most everyone, including Republicans, is a socialist. This renders the term meaningless, so let’s drop it and assumptions we project on others.
Thank you for reading. If you’re not already a Medium member, consider signing up here and, while you’re at it, consider following me for periodic articles spanning various topics, including life, business, economics, and politics.
