Google Ads


Site Stats

Should Progressive Democrats identify as "Socialists"?

by: hudi11

Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 12:19 AM EDT


The last item on 4/6 Afternoon Daily Digest about the relative popularity of "socialism" and Teabaggers got me thinking. If the GOP (or at least right-wing activists and opinion makers) is willing and eager to embrace the tea-party movement, why is it that Democrats continue to treat "socialism" as toxic? Certainly, its a losing proposition nationally (no Democratic candidate for president should EVER call themselves 'socialist'). In some parts of the country though, my hunch is that progressives/liberals/Democrats/the left ought to revisit their assumption that 'socialism' is to American politics as oil is to water.

The question I'm exploring here is:
Where might 'socialism' have either 50+ favorablity, or at least net postitive favorability?

hudi11 :: Should Progressive Democrats identify as "Socialists"?
The Gallop poll referenced here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx) was taken in January 2010. It found socialism at 36-58 overall, but at 53-41 among Democrats, and and 61-34 among liberals. Using Gallop's own data on party affiliation and ideology by state (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx), we can extrapolate views of socialism state by state:

DC (adjusted by ideology): 41/48
DC (adjusted by party affiliation): 47/47

MA (by ideology): 38/53
MA (by party): 40/54

VT-ideology: 39/53
VT-party: 39/54

NY-ideology: 37/53
NY-party: 39/55

OR-ideology: 37/54
OR-party: 37/56

CT-ideology: 37/54
CT-party: 38/55

RI-ideology: 37/54
RI-party: 40/53

HI-ideology: 38/52
HI-party: 39/54

MD-ideology: 37/54
MD-party: 39/54

I'll stop here. The states (and district) that I tested here are a few of the most left-leaning out there, yet only in DC under one method did I find socialism not to be a net negative, and only in DC did I not find it to be over 50% unfavorable. So unfortunately, the numbers don't support my hypothesis. A few concluding thoughts on this:

- My calculations assume that opinions of socialism are uniform nationwide among parties and ideological groups. This may not necessarily be true, but without state-by-state data on this question, I think this was the best I could do.

- My guess is that views of socialism correlate more strongly to ideology than to party affiliation. In practice though, the numbers are similar regardless of which method you use.

- The party and ideology data are from 2009. I think this may be a good thing though, since 2009 was in between a good year for Democrats and a bad one, so 2009 may be the year with data that best reflects the "starting point."

- A major problem that socialism has is that, in political terms, it has been defined by its opponents. No one (except perhaps for Bernie Sanders) in mainstream American political discourse ever sticks up for socialism. On the other hand, Republicans bash it constantly. Additionally, many Americans probably associate it with communism and the Eastern Bloc. Perhaps if the left made an investment in trying to "sell" socialism to the public, these numbers would improve.

- A fundamental assumption that I have made, that a socialist would only be electable if socialism has a net positive favorability rating, is probably wrong on its face. Vermont, for example, elected a Socialist Senator despite socialism having a net rating of minus 14 or 15 there. Many self described Liberals hold statewide office in America, despite liberals being only 20-30% of the electorate in any given state, and nationally.

- Related to the point above, Socialism actually seems to be viewed favorably by a larger percentage of the electorate than the percentage identifying themselves as Liberal. This holds true both nationally and in every state I tested.

- In the long run, running away from labels isn't a viable strategy. The American Left has been running away from the word "Liberal" ever since the 80s. People have thought its cute to call themselves "Progressives" instead, and Glenn Beck's recent paranoid tirades against Progressivism are a consequence of that. What's the next word we're all going to flee to now that conservatives are saying bad things about "Progressivism"?

- I really don't like the term "Liberal". Not because it doesn't poll well, but because its actually really inaccurate. At least on economic policy, Conservatives are far more "liberal" than "Liberals" are. "Progressive" is probably better, because it implies a belief in using government as an instrument of social progress, but again, I don't like the way that term is used by people who are afraid being called "Liberal".

- I consider myself a Socialist, or more specifically, a Social Democrat. This doesn't mean I believe in Marx, revolution, the abolishment of capitalism, or anything else crazy like that. It means I believe in government as a means to establish a better, fairer society. I believe Big Government is not inherently good or bad, its what you make of it. I believe the free market is generally good, but never perfect, and that the job of Government is to fill the gaps of capitalism that too many people would otherwise fall through. My views are most in line with the Canadian NDP, or the UK Labour Party (pre-Blair and "New Labour"). I support single-payer health insurance, strong bank regulation, and cap-and-trade, but I believe in compromise. I'm a proud Democrat, I don't do anything stupid like voting Green, I support Obama, and think "liberal No" votes are counterproductive. Were I in Congress, I would have proudly voted yes on the health care bill. I don't think I have radical views (by international standards I'm center-left), yet the word that describes them best is politically taboo in America.

- As a "bonus", I ran the numbers two more times, first on New York according to the 2008 exit polls, which I thought have somewhat better results (41-53 by ideology, 38-54 by party). Secondly, I tried my hometown of New York City, using numbers from this (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c4719d83-23d9-4e1d-95a6-975f4e2562e4) poll from last year's mayoral election. Here I found 37/46 by ideology, and 43/50 by party. I think its worth noting that opposition to socialism is at or under 50% here.

Final Conclusion: Socialism probably doesn't poll as well as I would have liked to see. Nonetheless, it seems to outperform Liberalism, and the stigma attached to it thus seems highly disproportionate. A candidate would almost certainly prefer to call himself a Liberal than a Socialist, yet this suggest that the "S" word is probably less of a liability than the "L" word. Certainly, a "Socialist" candidate should not have a hard time winning a Democratic Primary in areas where the Democratic nomination is tantamount to election.

Poll
Should blue-state Democrats take up the mantle of "Socialism"?
Yes
No

Results

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Meh...
I never did understand what all the furor over socialism was about. I mean, it's just a philosophy. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up in the Cold War.

As for liberalism - I like the word. "Liberal" has historical connotations dealing with freedom, revolution, the resistance of tyranny, and so on. It's a beautiful word.

http://mypolitikal.com/


I never did understand what all the furor over socialism was about
It's mostly the word Socialism that puts the fear into people. A Republican calls a Dem a Socialist (because calling them a liberal lost it's fear appeal eons ago) the public thinks of Communism (yeah I know there's a difference, but these dumb morons don't) then after that they idmeately think of Marxism, Lenin, oppression, "Sharing the Wealth" and tyranny. That what the furor is all about.

It's literally all about fear and scaring the living shit out of the voter that they will vote GOP instead of Dem. Same goes for calling someone a liberal.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.


[ Parent ]
My remarks
Blue state Democrats shouldn't call themselves socialists because, unfortunately, few of them actually are socialists. If more were, we would already have universal health coverage, like the rest of the countries with advanced economies.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


unfortunately, few of them actually are socialists
Few? There's more than one? I only know one: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. What Socialistic Lawmakers outside of Sanders do you know?

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

[ Parent ]
When
you compare Sanders to those of legislators in Europe he is actually very moderate, a blue dog of Europe if you will. If you look at other countries we have no politician near as liberal as they are overseas. If someone like Bernie Sanders wants to run as a socialist let them, but the average progressive (by our standards) politician is NO where near the level of politicians in Europe.    

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
This shouldn't be too difficult
Find any members of Congress whose voting record is very similar to Sanders'. I'll leave the exercise up to you.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Or better yet
Find members of Congress who has the guts to vote similar to Sanders.  Some members may have similar views with Sanders, but they don't have the backbone to vote like Sanders.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
I think there are probably a lot of people in congress
with voting records similar to Sanders'. Which goes to my point, that the word "socialism" is undeservingly feared in American politics, when in fact "socialists" like Sanders are actually very close to mainstream leftie politicians. Labels aside, Bernie Sanders isn't very different from people like Ted Kennedy, Jack Reed, Pat Leahy, or the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

[ Parent ]
I don't think I agree with you
The Democratic Party as a whole would be a right-of-center party in Europe, and probably a mainstream right-wing party in many places (like the British Conservative Party), in terms of its economic policies. It's only the left wing of the Democratic Party that resembles left-of-center parties in Canada, Europe, etc. So, mainstream lefties? Well, how mainstream are they, considering that until this year, there's never been anything remotely approaching universal health coverage, considered a basic right nowadays throughout just about all the other countries with advanced economies?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
There's at least one thing in which America is far to the left of Europe:
Immigration.

For instance, children of immigrants are automatically citizens in the United States - something that happens almost nowhere else.

Our liberal stance on immigration is one of our greatest strengths.

http://mypolitikal.com/


[ Parent ]
Thats very true.
To clarify, by "mainstream lefties" I didn't mean the mainstream of the Democratic Party, which would certainly be a center-right party in almost any other country. I was referring to the average member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus as well as the Kos/MoveOn/PCCC crowd. American Pols like my Congressman Jerry Nadler, Raul Grijalva, Barney Frank, George Miller, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Capuano, John Conyers, John Dingell, etc would all fit right in to any of the mainstream center-left Social Democratic (a.k.a. Socialist) parties in Europe (UK Labour, German SDP, etc.)

[ Parent ]
Jerry Nadler is my Representative, too
And while he's great on almost everything else, he is a total lackey of Wall Street, as far as I can tell, which makes him decidedly non-socialist. For example, I emailed him about how important it was to support the Grayson/Paul legislation to have a complete audit of the Federal Reserve, and he voted against that legislation without any comment that ever came to my attention, let alone any communication with me. I'll happily vote for him again, but a socialist, he's not.

I generally get your point, however.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Yea I know what you mean about Nadler
although honestly I'm willing to give him a pass on that. I mean, Wall St is literally in his district, and its safe to say that a good number of his constituents are employed in the financial industry. He's doing his job of representing the interests of his district.

[ Parent ]
I'd define most US Democratic Progressives
As European centrists, e.g. UK LibDems. Most members of the CPC believe "too much" in the free market to be true Social Democrats (who are also different from and to the right of European Socialists).

If you were to parachute Michael Harrington (and Bernie Sanders) into a European political environment, I do believe that they would be Social Democrats.


[ Parent ]
Bernie Sanders' brother is a Green
That said, he's on Oxford City Council, so that doesn't quite translate. Bernie doesn't vote his beliefs all the time. He's quite prepared to compromise to get a better bill. So looking at his voting record may not be accurate.

I tend to agree that most of the CPC would be Lib Dems or on the right wing of Labour (which is admittedly the governing wing at the moment, if not the majority force in the party) in a British context. For Labour our key issue is equality, and I don't see the enthusiasm is the CPC for redistributionist policies and the like.


[ Parent ]
What is wrong with Democrat?
Seriously though all these labels are pretty silly. I mean does anybody look at something and think they have to have a certain opinion on it because of their ideolgy? Maybe some but personally I take everything on a case by case basis and decide where I stand using common sense. And it just happens that what I decide generally means I agree with Democrats far more than I agree with Republicans.

Are you familiar with DSA?
Democratic Socialists of America

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

The were formed in the 1970s by the writer Michael Harrington as the "Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee" and in the early 1980s they merged with the progressive "New American Movement" to form the "Democratic Socialists of America"

They were a bit more prominent in the 1980s, working to strengthen the left wing of the Democratic party, build awareness of socialist thought, and help elect progressive candidates. Among other prominent members have been Ron Dellums, Ed Asner, Gloria Steinam.

They continue plugging away, but they don't have the membership or heft that they used to.

As for the question of whether Democratic candidates should run with the label "socialist", the answer is probably "no." As the polling indicates, the label still involves very negative connotations in many voters' minds. It makes fare more sense to run on socialist principles and ideas without feeling a need to use the label.

And the choice isn't simply between calling oneself a "socialist" or a "liberal" -- I'd actually suggest a better term is "progressive" -- it is actually (for complex historical and political philosophy reasons) a more accurate term, and one that doesn't carry the emotional baggage  of the other terms.  


Yea I've heard of them.
Democratic Socialism though is pretty far to the left of me. Democratic Socialist believe in a 100% public economy (i.e. socialism in the scary sense of the word). I believe in free markets with a healthy dose of government regulation.

[ Parent ]
actually you're wrong about that
Democratic socialists (and DSA in particular) don't believe in anything close to a 100% public economy -- they are very much a believer in a market economy with a significant role for government in filling essential niches and regulating private enterprise.

DSA is allied in the same international umbrella organisation as groups like the British Labour Party, the German Social Democrats, the Spanish and Italian Socialist parties, the Canadian New Democratic Party, the Australian Labour Party, Socialist Party of Chile, the various Scandinavian Social Democratic parties, the Israeli Labour and Meretz parties, and South Africa's African Nationalist Congress. Each one of these parties has extensive governing experience, and none of them have ever attempted to nationalise the economies in their countries.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that Democratic Socialists want a public economy -- it has never been part of Democratic socialist economic or political thinking. You must be confusing them with some other socialist tendency.  


[ Parent ]
Ah my mistake
sounds like they're in line with me after all

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox