(Editor's Note: I think Dan is being entirely too kind in his assessment in the second flow chart shown below. RK)
When writing about Bernie Sanders back in 2016, I put together a flowchart to identify different strains of statism.
In part, I wanted to show that genuine socialists, with their advocacy of government ownership, central planning, and price controls, aren’t really the same as other leftists (and I’ve made the unconventional claim that “Crazy Bernie” isn’t a true socialist – at least based on his policy positions).
I’m not the only one to notice that not all leftists have the same approach.
Writing for the Washington Post about the battle between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic nomination, Elizabeth Bruenig opines on the difference between two strains of statism.
Elizabeth Warren basically favors private ownership but she explicitly wants politicians and bureaucrats to have the power to dictate business decisions.
Thomas Sowell points out this economic philosophy is fascism. But I’ll be more polite and refer to it as corporatism.
By contrast, as a self-declared socialist, Bernie Sanders should be in favor of nationalizing companies.
But, as reported by the New York Times, he actually sees himself as another Franklin Roosevelt.
First, FDR may have won four times, but he was an awful President. His policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression.
And his proposed “economic bill of rights” would have made a bad situation even worse. He basically said everyone has a right to lots of freebies without ever stopping to think about the impact such policies would have on incentives to lead productive lives.
For all intents and purposes, we wanted to turn this cartoon into reality.
Second, I don’t actually think there’s a significant difference between Sanders and Warren. Yes, their rhetoric is different, but they both want higher taxes, more regulation, additional spending, and more intervention.
Heck, if you examine their vote ratings from the Club for Growth or the National Taxpayers Union, it’s hard to find any real difference.
At the risk of making a radical understatement, neither of them is a friend to taxpayers.
But thinking about this issue has motivated me to modify my statism flowchart. Here’s the new version.
As you can see, I created a much-needed distinction between totalitarian statism and democratic statism.
And while Warren is on the corporatist side and Sanders is on the socialist side, I also put both of them relatively close to the Venezuela-style track of “incoherent statism.” In other words, I think they’re guided by vote buying rather than a cohesive set of principles.
P.S. I wrote last week about the emerging “anti-socialist” wing of the Democratic Party. Presumably they would be the “rational leftists” on the flowchart.
In part, I wanted to show that genuine socialists, with their advocacy of government ownership, central planning, and price controls, aren’t really the same as other leftists (and I’ve made the unconventional claim that “Crazy Bernie” isn’t a true socialist – at least based on his policy positions).
I’m not the only one to notice that not all leftists have the same approach.
Writing for the Washington Post about the battle between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic nomination, Elizabeth Bruenig opines on the difference between two strains of statism.
They both sound like “stationary bandits” to me, but there are some nuances.What is the difference between Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)? …much of it comes down to the matter of regulation vs. revolution. For Warren, the solution to our economic ills already exists in well-regulated capitalism. “I believe in markets,”… Warren believes today’s socioeconomic ills are the result of high concentrations of power and wealth that can be resolved with certain regulatory tools and interventions. …for Sanders, those solutions come up short. ,,,Instead, he aims to transfer power over several key segments of life to the people — by creating a set of universal economic rights that not only entitle citizens to particular benefits (such as medical care, education and child care) but also give those citizens a say in how those sectors are governed: in short, democratic socialism.
Elizabeth Warren basically favors private ownership but she explicitly wants politicians and bureaucrats to have the power to dictate business decisions.
Thomas Sowell points out this economic philosophy is fascism. But I’ll be more polite and refer to it as corporatism.
By contrast, as a self-declared socialist, Bernie Sanders should be in favor of nationalizing companies.
But, as reported by the New York Times, he actually sees himself as another Franklin Roosevelt.
I’ll make two points.Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont offered a vigorous defense of the democratic socialism that has defined his five decades in political life on Wednesday… Mr. Sanders cast himself at times in direct competition with President Trump, contrasting his own collectivist views against what he called the “corporate socialism” practiced by the president and the Republican Party. And Mr. Sanders, 77, declared that his version of socialism was a political winner, having lifted Mr. Roosevelt to victory four times… Mr. Sanders…presented his vision of democratic socialism not as a set of extreme principles but as a pathway to “economic rights,”… He argued that his ideology is embodied by longstanding popular programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that Republicans have labeled socialist. …Mr. Sanders called for a “21st-century economic Bill of Rights,” which he said would address health care, wages, education, affordable housing, the environment and retirement.
First, FDR may have won four times, but he was an awful President. His policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression.
And his proposed “economic bill of rights” would have made a bad situation even worse. He basically said everyone has a right to lots of freebies without ever stopping to think about the impact such policies would have on incentives to lead productive lives.
For all intents and purposes, we wanted to turn this cartoon into reality.
Second, I don’t actually think there’s a significant difference between Sanders and Warren. Yes, their rhetoric is different, but they both want higher taxes, more regulation, additional spending, and more intervention.
Heck, if you examine their vote ratings from the Club for Growth or the National Taxpayers Union, it’s hard to find any real difference.
At the risk of making a radical understatement, neither of them is a friend to taxpayers.
But thinking about this issue has motivated me to modify my statism flowchart. Here’s the new version.
As you can see, I created a much-needed distinction between totalitarian statism and democratic statism.
And while Warren is on the corporatist side and Sanders is on the socialist side, I also put both of them relatively close to the Venezuela-style track of “incoherent statism.” In other words, I think they’re guided by vote buying rather than a cohesive set of principles.
P.S. I wrote last week about the emerging “anti-socialist” wing of the Democratic Party. Presumably they would be the “rational leftists” on the flowchart.
No comments:
Post a Comment