Paul Krugman is such a putz sometimes. We, as a nation, have to de-toxify the word socialism. No matter what anyone, especially conservatives trying to not admit the obvious in Denmark, likes to say, it remains certainly true that Denmark's approach is socialist in orientation, no matter what he wants to say. It is a lie we tell ourselves when we try to say Social Security and Medicare are not socialist. And just try to say to a conservative or a corporate Democrat, well, okay, then, let's compromise. Let's have Denmark. Then, they end up stammering back to Denmark still being too radical and, um, socialist. What is important about Sanders' candidacy, from the start of his candidacy in 2015, is his push back against the libel against socialist ideals since the start of the Cold War, and the rise of national corporate media propaganda in the service of the Cold War.
The ultimate answer is a mixed economy, of course. But the US needs to, again, de-toxify the S word so that intelligent, reasonable comparisons and contrasts may be done. Bernie's use of the phrase "democratic socialism" and his policies go back to Michael Harrington, who was always willing to identify himself as such, and understood the point was to move towards the best of those societies in Scandinavia, and complete the New Deal. That is Bernie's aim and intent.
As one reads Krugman, we see his fear is the Republicans and many media people will say, "SOCIALIST!" in scary tones. But that was what these folks called Obama. Corporate tool Obama. I mean, really, Paul, Harry Truman got the label and he was campaigning on single pay health insurance in 1948. And Harry's response was fabulous (and I have my own deep criticisms of Harry Truman):
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power.
Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is, “Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” and “down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.” That is what he means.
Socialism is what they called public power.
Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is, “Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” and “down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.” That is what he means.
Now, we know Harry was actually trying to say those things are not "socialist," which is how we ended up here. But in the current context, it helps us realize calling something "socialist" should not mean it is automatically bad. In fact, it can be very good. What is needed is for us, as a nation, to continue to push back and finally end the scary tones and phraseology about "socialism" so that, as already happens with young people already, the majority of Americans will just shrug their shoulders, and vote for a guy who speaks straight, consistently, and is primarily concerned with regular people, not rich donors or the 1%--you know, Bernie Sanders.
Krugman's problem is his attending too many NYT cocktail parties. Sometimes, I wonder what his outstanding economist wife sees in him.
