http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9867696e-05dc-11e5-b676-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3boSZaI9X
May 31, 2015 5:19 pm
American socialism’s day in the sun
ED LuceEdward Luce
Leftwing politicians are in electoral retreat across most of the western world. The one exception is the United States. At 15 per cent in the Democratic polls, Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, is riding higher than any US socialist since Eugene Debs ran for the White House a century ago.
The fact that Mr Sanders has very little chance of unseating Hillary Clinton is beside the point. His popularity is dragging her leftward. If he flames out, other left-wingers, such as Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland who entered the race at the weekend, are ready to pick up the baton. Elizabeth Warren, the populist Massachusetts senator, will continue to prod Mrs Clinton from outside the field. The more Mrs Clinton adopts their language, the harder it will be for her to reclaim the centre ground next year. Yet she is only following the crowd. A surprisingly large chunk of Democrats are happy to break the US taboo against socialism.
To most students of US politics, the phrase American socialism is an oxymoron — like clean coal or the Bolivian navy. A century ago, Werner Sombart, a German scholar, asked “Why is there no socialism in America?” It was a question that confounded Marxists. As the most advanced capitalistic society, the US was most ripe for a proletarian revolution, according to their teleology.
Yet the US refused to live up to its role. Europe’s finest intellectuals would have done better to have listened to the Irish immigrant in 1893 who on landing at Boston docks proclaimed: “If there’s a government here, I’m agin it.” They might also have read the first three words of the US constitution: “We the people”. For all the crimes committed against Native and black Americans, the US republic came into being without an aristocracy or feudal serfdom. It was born a middle class country with equality of opportunity as its creed. That made it a radically different place to the old world it had left behind.
Such differences are no longer obvious. No one, including Mr Sanders, is talking about nationalising chunks of the US economy. Yet his policies are radical by American standards. He wants a single-payer healthcare system, along the lines of Canada, or the UK. He would abolish tuition fees for instate higher education. He would drive big money out of US politics, redistribute income, mandate paid holidays and increase social security benefits. He would also break up the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks. “Are we prepared to take on the enormous political and economic power of the billionaire class,” asks Mr Sanders, “or do we continue to slide into . . . oligarchy?”
A highly energised minority of Democrats are responding to his message. Mr Sanders raised $1.5m from small donors within 24 hours of his launch in early May. Although Mr Sanders is trailing far behind Mrs Clinton, his support exceeds that of almost any candidate in the Republican field. Is it a temporary protest vote? Or should Mrs Clinton’s donors start to worry?
The answer to the first question will come when Democrats hold their first presidential debate. As a plain talker with an authentic personality, the septuagenarian Mr Sanders could strike an unflattering contrast to Mrs Clinton. Because Mrs Clinton is so strongly associated with dynasty and wealth — the Clintons earned more than $25m in speaking fees since the beginning of 2014 — she will feel all the more need to appropriate Mr Sanders’s rhetoric. But that will risk making her seem even less authentic. A majority of the US public already says they find Mrs Clinton untrustworthy. Mr Sanders will not become the 45th president of the US. But he could fatally wound Mrs Clinton’s chances. So, too, could Mrs Warren.
The answer to the second question is yes — Mr Sanders is no flash in the pan. Socialism found no audience in the US because most Americans felt they were middle class. High rates of social mobility gave most people the sense that their society was exceptional — and rightly so. As Richard Hofstadter, the US historian, said: “It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one.”
That is now in question. As recently as 2008, 63 per cent of Americans identified as upper middle or middle class. That has fallen to 51 per cent. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who self-identify as “working and lower class”, according to Gallup, has risen from 35 per cent to 48 per cent since 2008. Perhaps fittingly, the share of Americans who identify as upper class is 1 per cent. That number hasn’t changed. But the belief that they are rigging the system is now mainstream.
To be clear, I am not forecasting a red dawn in the US. It is hard to imagine even a small portion of Mr Sanders’s agenda being enacted. But the rise of the Democratic left is every bit as real as the Tea Party’s surge among Republicans. Until recently, political scientists talked of “asymmetric polarisation” — meaning Republicans were moving more to the right than Democrats were moving left. Now Democrats are catching up. Meanwhile, more and more Americans profess intolerance for other people’s political beliefs. Elections are generally won in the centre. But it is smaller than it used to be. By US traditions, next year’s election is likely to present an unusually stark clash of ideologies. Whatever else he does from here, Mr Sanders has already ensured that.
edward.luce@ft.com
May 31, 2015 5:19 pm
American socialism’s day in the sun
ED LuceEdward Luce
Leftwing politicians are in electoral retreat across most of the western world. The one exception is the United States. At 15 per cent in the Democratic polls, Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, is riding higher than any US socialist since Eugene Debs ran for the White House a century ago.
The fact that Mr Sanders has very little chance of unseating Hillary Clinton is beside the point. His popularity is dragging her leftward. If he flames out, other left-wingers, such as Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland who entered the race at the weekend, are ready to pick up the baton. Elizabeth Warren, the populist Massachusetts senator, will continue to prod Mrs Clinton from outside the field. The more Mrs Clinton adopts their language, the harder it will be for her to reclaim the centre ground next year. Yet she is only following the crowd. A surprisingly large chunk of Democrats are happy to break the US taboo against socialism.
To most students of US politics, the phrase American socialism is an oxymoron — like clean coal or the Bolivian navy. A century ago, Werner Sombart, a German scholar, asked “Why is there no socialism in America?” It was a question that confounded Marxists. As the most advanced capitalistic society, the US was most ripe for a proletarian revolution, according to their teleology.
Yet the US refused to live up to its role. Europe’s finest intellectuals would have done better to have listened to the Irish immigrant in 1893 who on landing at Boston docks proclaimed: “If there’s a government here, I’m agin it.” They might also have read the first three words of the US constitution: “We the people”. For all the crimes committed against Native and black Americans, the US republic came into being without an aristocracy or feudal serfdom. It was born a middle class country with equality of opportunity as its creed. That made it a radically different place to the old world it had left behind.
Such differences are no longer obvious. No one, including Mr Sanders, is talking about nationalising chunks of the US economy. Yet his policies are radical by American standards. He wants a single-payer healthcare system, along the lines of Canada, or the UK. He would abolish tuition fees for instate higher education. He would drive big money out of US politics, redistribute income, mandate paid holidays and increase social security benefits. He would also break up the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks. “Are we prepared to take on the enormous political and economic power of the billionaire class,” asks Mr Sanders, “or do we continue to slide into . . . oligarchy?”
A highly energised minority of Democrats are responding to his message. Mr Sanders raised $1.5m from small donors within 24 hours of his launch in early May. Although Mr Sanders is trailing far behind Mrs Clinton, his support exceeds that of almost any candidate in the Republican field. Is it a temporary protest vote? Or should Mrs Clinton’s donors start to worry?
The answer to the first question will come when Democrats hold their first presidential debate. As a plain talker with an authentic personality, the septuagenarian Mr Sanders could strike an unflattering contrast to Mrs Clinton. Because Mrs Clinton is so strongly associated with dynasty and wealth — the Clintons earned more than $25m in speaking fees since the beginning of 2014 — she will feel all the more need to appropriate Mr Sanders’s rhetoric. But that will risk making her seem even less authentic. A majority of the US public already says they find Mrs Clinton untrustworthy. Mr Sanders will not become the 45th president of the US. But he could fatally wound Mrs Clinton’s chances. So, too, could Mrs Warren.
The answer to the second question is yes — Mr Sanders is no flash in the pan. Socialism found no audience in the US because most Americans felt they were middle class. High rates of social mobility gave most people the sense that their society was exceptional — and rightly so. As Richard Hofstadter, the US historian, said: “It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one.”
That is now in question. As recently as 2008, 63 per cent of Americans identified as upper middle or middle class. That has fallen to 51 per cent. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who self-identify as “working and lower class”, according to Gallup, has risen from 35 per cent to 48 per cent since 2008. Perhaps fittingly, the share of Americans who identify as upper class is 1 per cent. That number hasn’t changed. But the belief that they are rigging the system is now mainstream.
To be clear, I am not forecasting a red dawn in the US. It is hard to imagine even a small portion of Mr Sanders’s agenda being enacted. But the rise of the Democratic left is every bit as real as the Tea Party’s surge among Republicans. Until recently, political scientists talked of “asymmetric polarisation” — meaning Republicans were moving more to the right than Democrats were moving left. Now Democrats are catching up. Meanwhile, more and more Americans profess intolerance for other people’s political beliefs. Elections are generally won in the centre. But it is smaller than it used to be. By US traditions, next year’s election is likely to present an unusually stark clash of ideologies. Whatever else he does from here, Mr Sanders has already ensured that.
edward.luce@ft.com
