Democratic journalists and pundits don't quite know what to do with Bernie Sanders at this point.
Some are thrilled that a real live socialist is actually a serious contender because they are themselves socialists, and now can finally admit it because he admits it. Others want to see the socialist aspect downplayed because they are afraid that nominating someone who so eagerly embraces the label would lead to four more years of Donald Trump.
A choice thus exists for a left-leaning Democratic media between intellectual honesty (which would involve an unapologetic, proud unfurling of the socialist flag) and electoral prudence (which would involve downplaying the socialist component to help Sanders win the presidency and thereby push the country further toward socialism with the powers of that office).
Either way, the tendency thus far has been to treat Sanders with kid gloves, to avoid asking hard questions about his rather dubious past and its ideological coloration, out of fear of either making him even more terrifying to moderate voters in November or derailing his prospects among more moderate Democratic voters this spring (which might already be occurring given his disappointing showing in states like Texas and Minnesota on Super Tuesday).
But intellectual curiosity must be satisfied at some point regarding the ideological anomaly that is Bernie, hence some questions that our media watchdogs haven't showed much interest in asking:
• Since Sanders describes himself as a socialist and news reporting persistently describes him as "more liberal" than the other candidates, which is it, socialist or liberal? As such, is a socialist simply a more liberal liberal? And is the liberalism-socialism distinction binary in nature (either A or B) or best represented as spots along the leftward side of the ideological continuum?
• What is the precise relationship between socialism (which Bernie claims to support) and communism (which he claims to disavow, if not very emphatically)? Are they interchangeable concepts, as 19th century socialists tended to see them? Or distinct belief systems that developed out of common Marxist origins (as 20th century socialists and communists tended to define them)?
Is socialism just progressive taxation, the welfare state and a higher minimum wage, while communism has all the icky stuff like dictatorships of the proletariat, gulags and killing fields?
• If real socialism means "public ownership of the means of production," as a rigorous interpretation of political theory would suggest, then what does Bernie's version mean, assuming he somehow knows what he means and that he doesn't mean that?
Within this context, does he still support "traditional socialist goals--public ownership of oil companies, factories, utilities, banks, etc.," as he once asserted in a newspaper interview while mayor, or has he changed his mind about such matters? And if the latter, why is he still calling himself a socialist?
• Does Bernie believe that the welfare state is synonymous with socialism, or is it simply a means of taking the rough edges off capitalism and saving it from itself (as many claimed regarding FDR's New Deal during the Great Depression)?
For that matter, is there anything at all in capitalism as a system that Bernie admires? How much of it, if any, would be permitted in his ideal world?
• Does Bernie believe that socialist experiments that turned out badly (see Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and all the others) were not real socialism? And if the real kind is found in Scandinavia, as he has suggested, does he know that those countries have economies that are in many respects more capitalist than our own?
To put it more bluntly, what does Sanders actually know about Scandinavian economies, what happened in the Soviet Union or China, or economic and political theory more broadly?
• What are we to make of Sanders' persistent tendency to praise Marxist dictatorships wherever he found them, even melting-down-before-our-eyes Venezuela? Was this just another expression of the principle of "no enemies to the left," however heinous and bloody some of those leftist manifestations tended to be? Or does such a long life of fellow-traveling suggest that deep down Sanders is more radical than he now presents himself, to the point of seeing left-wing dictatorships as sometimes desirable for achieving leftist goals?
• Finally, why do so many of Sanders' supporters claim that he is less threatening than he appears because if elected his more radical proposals would have no chance of being implemented? Isn't this a rather curious endorsement of a candidate (it's safe to vote for him because no one shares his nutty ideas)? And wouldn't such a claim actually only be true if the Republicans kept control of the Senate, which Bernie supporters hope doesn't happen and will vote to prevent?
For decades now, conservative critics have been arguing that New Deal/Great Society liberalism leads inexorably to socialism. At the least, the Sanders campaign makes it harder to dismiss such arguments.
We thus arrive at some intriguing conclusions: If Sanders goes on to win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency, the Democratic Party becomes a full-fledged socialist party.
And if Sanders wins the nomination and loses 49 states in November, no one is going to touch the socialist label for generations.
------------v------------
Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.
Editorial on 03/09/2020