Socialism isn't taking over the Democratic party. And Socialism, especially the Democratic Socialism that exists in the United States, isn't communism. It's the diametric opposite of communism.
It is sometimes frustrating to use the term "Democratic Socialist," and have people turn up their noses, not knowing exactly what that means, but thinking it's the same thing as communism, and then turn around and say that they are 100% behind some political statement or plan that is pure Democratic Socialism. Ah, the sad and painful result is this, of the dumbing down of the few social studies requirements for students in school left after most of them have been eliminated from public school curriculum. When I taught high school civics, we distinguished between the economics and politics of Marxist Communism, Democratic Socialism, Capitalism and the American Constitutional Republic, which is a form of Democracy. I doubt that's even a college requirement now.
And here's some additional news. Considering the political atmosphere in this country right now, it would not matter very much if it actually did. We've seen Trump's true colors for a long time now, and while it is an embarassment to this country that it has taken so long for its people to realize this, there is now a solid core of Americans, about 60% of those who plan to go to the polls and vote in November, who realize electing Trump was a huge mistake.
That has opened the door for more consideration of candidates for office who self-describe as Democratic socialists to campaign and win in primaries, since the pressure to try and generate more support from more conservative voters, which didn't ever really work anyway, is not as intense. In fact, the wing of the Democratic party that seems to be most enthusiastic and is drawing people in and raising the percentages of potential voters is the side that leans toward Democratic Socialism.
Democratic Socialism is Franklin Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt, arguably one of the best Presidents in American history, and singularly the most popular, won his first two terms on his economic plan, The New Deal, which was the most innovative economic, social and political reform programs in American history. The New Deal is still one of the best examples of Democratic Socialism, because so much of what was instituted by government to help provide relief for the unemployed, recovery for the economy and which reformed the financial and banking system to safeguard against future economic downturns has survived to the present day. And it was successful in achieving its ends, in that it laid a framework down for continued reforms, based on the learning experience where there were failures.
So this is nothing new. Take away the edge that has been placed on terms like "socialist," and it becomes pretty clear that the things on which current American Democratic Socialists are focusing are popular with voters. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have invested a lot of time articulating the agenda for Democratic Socialists. They want to break up the corporate monopolies, something which we have a legal and constitutional basis for doing, but which has been unenforced by recent Republican administrations, put in a system of fair and equitable taxation, "making corporations pay their fair share" when it comes to taxes, which they don't do now, and get the government involved in a much bigger way in areas where there is a demonstrated need for reform, such as health insurance and health care.
The aim of their agenda is to help the American working class by providing an economy that focuses on affordability. They want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, many of who pay next to nothing now, and well below the percentages of income that middle class taxpayers now pay. And they want to make major reforms to the Affordable Care Act, in ways that eliminate the profiteering on health insurance coverage, and gets the insurance companies out of the business of determining patient care.
It's been the left side of the Democratic party that has provided the energy and momentum that has produced the massive turnouts in the No Kings marches and rallies, and has pushed voter enthusiasm to near-record polling levels three and a half months before the midterms. And I'll also say that it is not going to be necessary to try and walk some kind of middle-of-the-road position to attempt to attract more conservative voters. Those whose ignorance and stupidity include racist prejudice against candidates like Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat in Michigan, and Francesca Hong, the Demoncratic nominee for Governor of Wisconsin, wouldn't be convinced to vote for them anyway. There will be plenty of more progressive minded voters to make up the difference.
The Main Objective of This Civics and Economic Lesson
We've had laws regulating economic practices in this country since the very beginning. They are based on the founding American principle that a government of, by and for the people is responsible for the collective protection of its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic. As a result, when it has become the practice of business to organize itself in such a way as to take advantage of Americans by profiteering tactics, such as forming trusts, or monopolies to control every aspect of supply and demand of goods and services, government has stepped in. That, for most of those who call themselves Democratic Socialists, is the essence of government protecting its citizens.
I've had a front seat to the monopolies and trusts being formed in health care over the last 20 years as I have prepared for retirement. My current health care provider, a non-profit, religious based corporation, was bought out by a major medical conglomorate about four years ago. The effects of this have been immediate. There was a rush, among some of the older doctors and medical staff, to the retirement exit. Appointments that used to be easy to get within a couple of weeks, now require more than a month's wait, and in the case of my general practice physician, three months is not unusual. During the three hospitalizations I've had over the past eight years, there has been a noticeable decline in the quality of nursing care, as the number of patients assigned to each nurse in the hospital has doubled and nursing staffs have been cut.
Of course, the most noticeable change was the increase in costs, as my insurance provider raised premiums because the costs went up. I went on Medicare three years ago, just before my employer-provided insurance premium topped $1,000 a month. But the gap insurance that I have now is double the monthly cost from the original contract.
Communication, even through their online app, has become far more difficult and time consuming following a major change to a different provider for online medical records. Shortly after having a major problem retrieving my own online account through the app I found out that the corporation that now owns the provider also owns the company that operates the online records system. The average wait to see a specialist now is 6 weeks.
My Support For Democratic Socialists Starts With Their Support of Medicare For All
I've seen "socialized medicine" up close. When my Dad remarried at 80, it brought a stepbrother and his wife into the family who are Canadian citizens. They are in their 70's so I've seen how their medical care works, compared to ours. They live less than an hour's drive from Toronto, so of course, they have access to the best that Canadian Medicare has to offer. There is a cost to the program, like Americans and medicare, Canadians pay the medical tax as a payroll deduction. That, of course, spreads the cost of medical care out over a lifetime.
But the bottom line is that most of the money paid in, about 90% of it, actually pays for the care, while in the United States, half of what we pay for medical "costs" go to pay the dividends for stockholders who own the hospital corporations and insurance companies. They seem to be very satisfied with the quality of care they receive, and while there are some procedures and regulations that seem designed to test patience, overall, from my perspective, they are much better off than I am, even though I've finally reached medicare eligibility. Their actual cost, out of pocket, for the premiums is less than half of what private insurance costs in the US.
The trade off is that the difference between what most Americans, or their employers, now pay for health insurance is twice as much as the payroll deduction would be for a Medicare-for-all kind of program. For me, the last two or three years that I worked, that would have meant a savings of over $500 a month. That's a huge benefit for middle class Americans, the 99% of us who work for a living.
And that's what Democratic Socialism is all about. It's about helping the middle class get more out of the dollars they work hard to earn.
No comments:
Post a Comment