In discourse about politics, I see increased divisiveness, cynicism and an averseness to perspective and debate. In laying out the problematic ideas and beliefs I see coming from “democratic socialists,” I can confidently say (as someone who defines himself as a moderate/centrist liberal) the terms “liberal” and “democratic socialists” are not synonymous.
Political commentator David Sirota, a self-professed progressive liberal, states that “there is a fundamental difference” between a centrist liberal and a “progressive.” The term “progressive” or “democratic socialist,” which I find to mean the same, is normally a politically fiscal concept. According to Sirota, “‘liberals’ … are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society.” He continues, “‘progressive’(s) are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.” In addition to this definition, I find “democratic socialism/progressivism” has developed an ideology where self-referentiality is the foundation of morality.
Let me be clear: There are issues our country needs to fix. I certainly want and work for women to be treated respectfully, and that everyone, regardless of gender, race or religion, should receive equal opportunities. To me, this is simply being a good human. But when these morally sound baselines are hyper-contorted to fit ideology, not policy, the issues become misconstrued. There isn’t actually a push for progress, but rather a tit-for-tat competition of who can be the most “progressive.”
One of the larger issues I’ve noticed is the “democratic socialist” mindset — a blind faith in some policies not because they are understood, but because they sound nice. This leads to easily-repeated phrases and slogans (“resist, resist, resist”) that, I guarantee you, most of their users do not understand. It’s just the “right thing” to say — and people retweet, like and pat them on the back for doing so.
For example, some cite Bernie Sanders on the importance of free college education. A common solution provided is taxing more of the wealthy corporations so that our education could be paid. But do you understand the tax systems involved? Do you understand the necessary restructuring of existing policy? Do you reckon that some privileges might be taken away? I reckon that almost all these individuals who abide by such beliefs don’t know; rather, they faithfully follow the leader. This is highly problematic. Though reduced college fees certainly aren’t unreasonable, it is still our duty as citizens to understand policy and logically develop our own ideas, not base our logic in niceties and emotional rhetoric.
In addition, the “progressive” movement has begun to use tactics scarily similar to the Tea Party’s, much of which includes their response to President Obama’s stimulus bailout package in 2009. What started as an issue on fiscal policy quickly became an organization that popularized and espoused some deeply questionable ideas, such as the birther movement, and welcomed problematic people, such as Donald Trump. In addition, people in the Tea Party had a sense of disdain for dialogue and believed the system doesn’t need to be improved, but destroyed. From my perspective, eerily similar notions from the “democratic socialists” are being espoused. The biggest difference is that the baseline notions of progressivism are good, but their intents are taken far out of proportion.
An issue in “progressivism” is an aversion to introspection on the morality of the movement, since many of the underlying values are moral and just. Therefore, whenever there is a “screaming match” against a campus speaker, there’s a sense of a moral “high ground” because it is “in the name of” equality. Therefore, any action (though possibly uncouth and quite morally dubious) that defeats the “perpetrator” is acceptable. There’s no actual dialogue to question, to think about their own ideas and to debunk questionable notions. It’s just a mob looking for a person or group to blame and demolish. “Democratic socialism” now isn’t about change — it’s about getting even.
I find that, in the name of increased dialogue, equality, justice and other good things, the “progressive” movement has played a bit of mental gymnastics with the semantics of these words. These words push politics into a competition, not actually hoping for true progress, but a sense of camaraderie among only certain individuals and a personal need for acceptance. The movement has become a contest of who can be more “progressive” and who needs to be done away with — rather than persuaded and reformed.
Furthermore, the sense of morality is almost entirely based on self-referentiality. If only one person has qualms about a certain phrase, word or minute action, everything associated with that deed is regarded as morally problematic. Though this sometimes is fine, my problem is that “progressives” today deem this the end of the discussion. There are no follow-up questions, or only some social group can comment. Otherwise, any remarks are seen as unethical and an egregious act against a particular group of people.
I hope that the Democratic Party, which I usually support, takes a step back and doesn’t adopt this ideology into its platforms. If the Democrats want to win in 2018, they must begin to distance themselves from this mindset. Though the baselines for this movement are things I work and advocate for, the aggressive, exclusionary, hyper-partisan rhetoric the “democratic socialists” push will only create more divide, which then creates more tumult to the chagrin of more retweets, more likes and smugger political sport.
David Kamper can be reached at dgkamper@umich.edu.