The New Socialists

There are times when I simply stare in disbelief at what I am reading. Today in the New York Times, there was a piece titled "The new socialists" (Link). It was a commentary on the wave of younger politicians, mostly on the local level, following the lead of Bernie Sanders with an unambiguous embrace of socialist policies. The article is written by Corey Robin, a professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York Graduate Center. Mr. Robin writes:

Self-identified socialists like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib are making inroads into the Democratic Party, which the political analyst Kevin Phillips once called the “second-most enthusiastic capitalist party” in the world. Membership in the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the country, is skyrocketing,especially among young people.

Mr. Robin delves into the source of the appeal. He goes on write that:

The socialist argument against capitalism isn’t that it makes us poor. It’s that it makes us unfree. 

Socialism means different things to different people. For some, it conjures the Soviet Union and the gulag; for others, Scandinavia and guaranteed income. But neither is the true vision of socialism. What the socialist seeks is freedom.

Under capitalism, we’re forced to enter the market just to live. The libertarian sees the market as synonymous with freedom. But socialists hear “the market” and think of the anxious parent, desperate not to offend the insurance representative on the phone, lest he decree that the policy she paid for doesn’t cover her child’s appendectomy. Under capitalism, we’re forced to submit to the boss. Terrified of getting on his bad side, we bow and scrape, flatter and flirt, or worse — just to get that raise or make sure we don’t get fired.

The socialist argument against capitalism isn’t that it makes us poor. It’s that it makes us unfree. When my well-being depends upon your whim, when the basic needs of life compel submission to the market and subjugation at work, we live not in freedom but in domination. Socialists want to end that domination: to establish freedom from rule by the boss, from the need to smile for the sake of a sale, from the obligation to sell for the sake of survival........
The socialist, by contrast, believes that making things free makes people free.

Say what? Making things free makes people free? However, things are not free and cannot be free. We are inherently dependent upon others for our existence, unless we can take care of all our needs without anyone else's help. That is essentially impossible. Yes we are forced to enter the "market" to live, but remember what markets are. They are places where people are free to enter into voluntary agreements with other like minded people who are free to interact or not. That is the nature of freedom.

What alternatives do we have other than voluntary exchanges or interactions?  The alternatives are limited to no exchanges or forced exchanges. Humans can function at three basic levels; as single individuals, as individuals as part of groups where members participate voluntarily, and part of members of states where the state has the power to coerce its members. Market exchanges are marked by freedom to participate or not. States are defined by their authority to force members to comply. States have the proverbial ability to hold a gun to your head. Socialism highlights state ownership and control.

I believe that in a world that seems to be marked by political gridlock, one of the attractions of Socialism is its promise to use the power of the state to force those who might be viewed as hindering getting things done into complying with those who believe themselves to be right. For those who hold a strong and unwavering vision of being right, this perspective can act as a siren's song. However, one needs to remember that creating pathways increasingly unbridled power will attract those who are most motivated to harness that type of power, and tend to be least constrained by moral scruples that would limit their exercise of power.

It is reasonable to have pointed discussions regarding the failings of market based systems. However, those discussions need to be coupled with honest discussions of failures and catastrophes of unbridled state power. There might be disagreements as to all the particulars of how to define Socialism, but there is agreement that it is at its most basic level, an expansion of state power.

What criteria are important in selecting leaders

As most of you likely realize, I live in Georgia. We are in the midst of a contentious election for governor which has made it on to the national stage. I am not at all happy about by choices. On the Republican side we have Brian Kemp, who out-maneuvered current Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle for the nomination by out-Trumping him. Don't get me wrong, I was no Casey Cagle fan and I suspect I would be in the same boat if Brian Kemp had lost the primary. However, Kemp prevailed because he sent a xenophobic and gun and chain saw worshiping message to the voters and connected with their inner reptiles. It was simply mean-spirited.

 Just to give him a fair shake, I visited him website. It did not instill any confidence.  It is filled with platitudes but there is little content. He wants to "take a chainsaw" to state regulations. I am all for limited government but there are NO specifics on how this portion of his platform will be implemented. He makes a strong appeal to rural Georgia which I sense is reaching back to the past.

Then there is the Democrat candidate Stacy Abrams. In contrast to Brian Kemp, her website is rich with content describing her proposed agenda. I agree with her on her social agenda and have my disagreements with her on fiscal policy. The cloud that hangs over her is one relating to her personal finances, which she has been completely transparent about. She has over $50K of deferred Federal Taxes and It has been reported and commented on by both state and national press including the New York Times. Today there was an OpEd piece which commented on the Kemp attacks:

This line of attack throws a pernicious political dynamic into high relief. The financial problems of poor and middle-class people are treated as moral failings, while rich people’s debt is either ignored or spun as a sign of intrepid entrepreneurialism.

Reading interviews of Ms. Abrams fill in details which point to her use of financial options available to her to meet the needs of her family, shedding a more positive light on her particular circumstances.  She took on the role of saving her extended family from financial calamity after the convergence of a host of factors. Ms. Abrams is clearly a financial risk taker, which has it upsides and downsides. She is not afraid of personal debt.

I still have to ask the question as to whether it is appropriate for voters to be skeptical of an individual's ability to make good decisions regarding state government finances when they have made perhaps poor decisions with their own? The Times clearly thinks this to be inappropriate. I think it is reasonable to ask what they have learned from their experiences. Ms. Abrams accrued heavy debt to finance her education and has continued to use debt to further her career. She does not regret doing this and does not believe it to be a mistake, yet. Does that approach to debt translate into how she will govern? No matter who she is and where she came from, this is a legitimate question to ask. 

Anger, fear, the reptile brain, and electoral success

It appears that it is perpetually election season. For a creature like me who is fundamentally skeptical of the ability of political systems to actually solve problems, I would rather think about almost anything except politics. I realize that my own take on the evolution of politics and the nature of political competition is but a brief flash in the long history of how politics has been conducted in human history stretching back millennia. However, it appears to me that earlier in my lifetime, my perception was that politicians at least tried to appeal to the electorate's ability to reason, at least early in campaigns. Maybe this was an aberration,

This all takes me to thinking about studies over the past 50 years on human decision making. How do we decide what party and candidates to support and what issues to champion? It turns out that we pick candidates an issues much the same way we any other choice, whether that be a pair of shoes, a menu item in a restaurant, or where to buy a house. We are endowed with two decision making machines in our brains which have been described as system 1 and system 2. The former is an evolutionary ancient tool which operates below our threshold of consciousness. It can process huge amounts of information with little or no effort and its readouts are emotional. System 2 is a more recent evolutionary development. It is what we are conscious of. It is slow and plodding, a serial processor, capable of more nuanced thought. It is also a resource hog which can be used only sparingly without exhausting its user.

My observation is that campaigns historically have started by trying to appeal to system 2, but over time as campaigns heat up, they quickly more to strict system 1 appeals. Over most recent years, it appears that all attempts to appeal to system 2 have gone away. It makes sense. Why bother appealing to the rational and thoughtful brain when we all know that the election will be decided by system 1 appeals directed to fear, anxiety, anger, and envy?

Much has been made of Donald Trump's appeal to white rage and anger. I think what made Trump stand out is his immediate dismissal of any need to appeal to the rational side of voters. In that sense he was very efficient in the use of his resources. His success derived from this strategy is very concerning, but also concerning to me is the strategy of his opponents, rejecting his aims but embracing his approach. They match anger with more anger.

My question to my readers (all five of you), is "Is anger a good starting off point for political movement?" I think not. There is no question anger and fear are powerful motivators in politics. They may be able to get you elected but they are terrible motivations when governing. Is it possible for those who get elected by appealing to system 1 can govern using system 2? Perhaps that does not matter when governing becomes a secondary priority.