We hear it a lot—the term ‘democratic socialism’—but what exactly does it mean? Who better to ask than its main proponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. In a 2015 speech to Georgetown University titled, “Democratic Socialism and Foreign Policy,” Sanders defines ‘democratic socialism’ as “Building on what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said when he fought for guaranteed economic rights for all Americans; and it builds on what Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1968 when he stated, ‘This country has socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor’” (Wall Street Journal, 2015). Sanders adds, “We must reform a political system which is corrupt; […] we must create an economy that works for all not just the very wealthy” (Wall Street Journal, 2015). There’s a lot in there to be unpacked, but let’s start with FDR. In his 1944 State of the Union address, Roosevelt argued that “the one supreme objective for the future” is security. Security, for Roosevelt, meant substantially more than just physical or national security. As he explains in his speech, security also means such things as “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want” (Roosevelt, 1944). The short and sweet version of Roosevelt’s argument could be summarized as the belief that material or economic security was essential in order for "real freedom" to exist. Sanders adopts this same argument, adding that he wants to build on what MLK said when he decried “socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor.” Ostensibly, Sanders interprets this as using the power of the federal government to forcibly redistribute wealth to render more equitable economic outcomes as opposed to “capitalism,” which only serves to enrich those at the top. Unfortunately, Sanders gets it backwards: “Socialism for the rich” rather than describe capitalism, actually describes what it better known as cronyism or corporatism. Perhaps Sanders realizes that the moral and indeed, the political argument for redistributionism are highly unpopular and lacking in substance. Choosing to conflate capitalism with cronyism may, for some, obfuscate the true nature of capitalism and invite some level of appeal to Sander’s program - but all that remains once Sander’s grandiose rhetoric has been deconstructed is a desperate attempt to construe socialism as moral by putting the word ‘democracy’ in front of it.
References
Roosevelt, F. D. (1944, January 11). State of the Union Message to Congress. Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Retrieved December 4, 2021, from http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html
Wall Street Journal. (2015, November 20). Bernie Sanders Defines Democratic Socialism [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQs_lmpQh6Q
Really amazing post Sean!
I like how you discuss the main tenets of democratic socialism circulating around the belief of redistribution of wealth. Although I agree with your conclusion that redistribution of wealth sidelines the creation of wealth, there is still one question that remains: why is democratic socialism so popular if it is so flawed?
To answer this question, a good Christian must analyze why poverty still remains despite there being so much wealth. This points Christians to the root of all evil in the world, the broken nature of man and the world. God does not promise a complete redemption of the world until the second coming of Christ, so how does a Christian in the status quo subdue the burden of sin? The answer is that they must inhibit institutions and actions of evil instead of completely eradicate them. To show mercy and love towards the innocent. For the Christian, this could come in the form of charity, tithing, and the creation of new opportunities for the oppressed. In a similar, but equally important question, what should the Christian not do? The answer here is that a Christian cannot coerce the hearts of others. A Christian cannot compel people in a free society to be outwardly good. Charity is not charity if it is compelled. Compelling another in a free society to action to suit ones' own needs is more-so thievery then it is charity, and instead of becoming the redeemer that Christ calls us to, we continue to be the oppressor.