Krugman: Sanders isn't a socialist, but he plays one on TV. That's a problem.

[highplainsdem]

Actually, it's much more of a problem than Krugman admits, since his argument that Sanders isn't a socialist was immediately dismantled by another columnist. More on that below.


Krugman's latest column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-socialism.html

The thing is, Bernie Sanders isn’t actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term. He doesn’t want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with central planning; he has expressed admiration, not for Venezuela, but for Denmark. He’s basically what Europeans would call a social democrat — and social democracies like Denmark are, in fact, quite nice places to live, with societies that are, if anything, freer than our own.

So why does Sanders call himself a socialist? I’d say that it’s mainly about personal branding, with a dash of glee at shocking the bourgeoisie. And this self-indulgence did no harm as long as he was just a senator from a very liberal state.

But if Sanders becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, his misleading self-description will be a gift to the Trump campaign. So will his policy proposals. Single-payer health care is (a) a good idea in principle and (b) very unlikely to happen in practice, but by making Medicare for All the centerpiece of his campaign, Sanders would take the focus off the Trump administration’s determination to take away the social safety net we already have.

Just to be clear, if Sanders is indeed the nominee, the Democratic Party should give him its wholehearted support. He probably couldn’t turn America into Denmark, and even if he could, President Trump is trying to turn us into a white nationalist autocracy like Hungary. Which would you prefer?

But I do wish that Sanders weren’t so determined to make himself an easy target for right-wing smears.

That got a quick response from Kevin Williamson at National Review, which I'm posting to show how quickly this argument that Sanders isn't a socialist can be dismantled:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sanders-and-socialism-and-krugman/

1. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist. He has for a long time. He has been affiliated with other socialists and socialist institutions over the years. At some point, we should take the man at his word. Paul Krugman says Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. Bernie Sanders says Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Maybe Bernie Sanders has a say in that.

2. Senator Sanders does want to nationalize some major industries, health care prominent among them. He also proposes to enact political controls over other key industries, such as media and banking, that would amount to something close to nationalization. He would subject media companies’ business decisions to political control and would have the federal government own and operate banks.

3. Senator Sanders has expressed admiration for Venezuela. It is simply untrue to write, as Professor Krugman does, that he has not. Then-Representative Sanders went as far as to sign a letter of support for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez in 2003. And the policies that Sanders proposes are not actually very much like Denmark’s, while his promise of “revolution” is familiar stuff from the experience of Venezuela and other similar cases.

Btw, Krugman isn't critical only of Sanders in his new column. He doesn't like Buttigieg talking about the deficit, and even calls him a deficit hawk.

Which Jordan Weissman at Slate disgarees with, though he says Buttigieg plays a deficit hawk on the stump:

https://slate.com/business/2020/02/pete-buttigieg-deficit-debt-please-stop.html

These sorts of soundbites make Buttigieg come off as a run-of-the-mill budget scold, the sort of politician who would be open to Social Security or Medicare cuts as part of a plan to reduce the nation’s borrowing. Consequently, the rhetoric has alarmed a number of commentators on the left, who would like Democrats to stop worrying so much about deficits. The American Prospect has even dubbed him “Austerity Pete.” But if you look carefully at his comments, and his platform, it’s pretty clear the label doesn’t fit.

-snip-

Buttigieg’s platform doesn’t involve much if any serious budget-cutting, either. Quite the opposite. He says he wants to increase Social Security benefits. He’s envisioned an ambitious government health-care expansion. And altogether, he’s outlined $7.2 billion in new spending, according to the centrist Progressive Policy Institute. He just also happens to have sketched out roughly $7.4 trillion in pay-fors, which is why he sometimes brags that his agenda would start to reduce the deficit.

And Weissman goes on to explain what he heard from the Buttigieg campaign when he questioned them about this.



Krugman's column is basically him worrying aloud that Democrats might squander their chance of defeating Trump if our nominee, whoever it is, "turns the election into a referendum on either single-payer health care or deficit reduction, neither of which is an especially popular position."

He seems to be trying to nudge Sanders toward the center, and Buttigieg a bit to the left.

But the headline is about Sanders, and IMO that's because Krugman's aware that the socialist label will hurt the Democrats in the GE much more than an accusation of being concerned about the deficit will.

[tiredtoo]

1. You do know National Review is a conservative publication

Don't you?

[highplainsdem]

3. Yes, and I quoted it to show how the GOP will respond to an argument like Krugman's that

Sanders isn't really a socialist.

I don't think Krugman's argument was very strong, and the response to his column showed how quickly the GOP could take it apart in an ad.

I also quoted a response to what Krugman said about Buttigieg.

[tiredtoo]

4. Well that's close to violating the rule about posting rightwing talking points etc.

While you are posting rightwing talking points, how about posting how they will respond to all our candidates.

[highplainsdem]

10. It isn't a RW talking point to point out that Sanders has called himself a socialist for decades.

There are countless posts here from DUers who are lifelong Democrats who have pointed out what a problem that will be.

As for nationalizing industries, Krugman himself points out what a problem making MFA a centerpiece of his campaign will be for Sanders. So how is that a RW talking point? The response to him mentioned another industry, and I remembered the stories about another industry Sanders wants the federal government to take over.

And Sanders' past statements about Venezuela are why he keeps being asked about it, including during debates, by the MSM.

All of these things are baggage the Sanders campaign will have to deal with. They won't go away if we stick our heads in the sand and try to pretend they don't exist, or will only be mentioned or considered by RWers.

And you know they've been the subjects of a lot of posts here, from Democrats who think Sanders will turn out to be a very weak candidate in the GE.

[MH1]

12. It's conservative in outlook but generally respectable

It's not a dung heap like many other right wing sources.

Intelligent people can differ on what is the best policy solution.

I probably disagree with 95% or more of the opinions and bias published in the National Review, but they don't make shit up out of nothing like some others do.

They will be used as a quality source to target people who are open to the conservative-but-not-batshit viewpoint.

[DanTex]

2. The National Review didn't "dismantle" anything, it repeated a bunch of right-wing smears that are

going to be launched against any Democratic candidate.

[highplainsdem]

7. Every single point made in that column was specifically about Sanders, not about

Democrats in general.

Sanders has described himself as a socialist, for decades.

Sanders does want to nationalize some industries, including the power industry, which that response to Krugman didn't even mention:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/02/bernie-sanders-climate-federal-electricity-production-110117

And Sanders is still being asked about Venezuela because of what he's said in the past.

[DanTex]

8. Right, and they're going to throw the same smears at any Dem candidate.

And also other smears. It's the National Review we're talking about.

[TwilightZone]

9. That's simply not true.

No one is going to credibly accuse Bloomberg, for example, of being a socialist.

Each candidate has unique strengths and unique weaknesses. The assertion that they're all the same and that they would all be attacked with the same talking points is simplistic and inarguably false.

[highplainsdem]

11. +1,000,000

[Perseus]

14. I would not be surprised if they labeled Bloomberg as a socialist as well

They know their base is not very smart, many of them won't even know who Bloomberg is.

We have to accept the reality that when it comes to republican propaganda, anything goes, they don't adhere to the truth, on the contrary, the more impacting the lie that more they will repeat it.

[TwilightZone]

19. It won't work with anyone other than the die-hards.

Plus, Trump can't label another (or real, for that matter) billionaire a socialist. What would that make him?

It's just not realistic to believe it's going to have the same effect as labeling Sanders a socialist. It's laughable, really.

[TwilightZone]

5. I completely agree that he's not a socialist.

Krugman is exactly right.

I've been saying that for years. Even the DSA doesn't think he's a socialist and debated whether or not to endorse him because of that fact. In the end, they felt he'd be a useful tool to pursue their agenda.

Sanders' problem is that he saddled himself with an inaccurate label decades ago and has no idea how to detach himself from it now. He can't, so he basically tries to convince people that regulated capitalism is socialism.

It's not.

[Perseus]

15. Kevin Daniel Williamson is an American neo-conservative political commentator.

I know the original poster is a Biden supporter, he/she needs to read the article I posted from Kevin Williamson about Biden. If he/she values Williamson's opinion on Sanders, then he should value his opinion on the Biden, which is not very good according to that article.

We should vet those people who write negative articles about Democratic candidates, the likelihood they are going to vote for trump is very high, that they are republicans hacks is very high as well.

I wish I had a way to convince people in DU to stop this bickering among us, we need to support ALL our candidates and whoever wins the nomination must be supported without reservation, the alternative is dire. Is that too difficult to understand?

[TwilightZone]

17. I agree with Krugman. I didn't bother with the National Review.

Frankly, I didn't even get to the NR article in the post other than skimming a couple lines.

I disagree with the premise that because the right wing will attack Sanders for being a socialist, Krugman is wrong. He's not. Krugman is right and the assertion that Sanders will be attacked as a socialist is, as well. There's really no connection between the two.

If we take the OP at face value, the point of including the NR article was to show how the right will react. We knew that already. It was unnecessary and just confuses the point.

[brush]

16. You're absolutely right. He screwed up years ago by calling himself a "socialist" (he's tried...

in more recent years to add the word "democratic" in front of it but the videos and ample other evidence is out there of him touting socialism). He should've said years ago he was a "social democrat" if that is really what he meant but he's stuck with the baggage-laden, self-appelation of "democratic socialist".

I should also add he regularly appeared on "The Thom Hartman" radio show for years and proudly called himself a "socialist" without the word "democratic" in front of it.

[TwilightZone]

18. Social Democrat vs Democratic Socialist.

Agree entirely. Some are trying to conflate the two terms when they are actually very different. The former is a much more accurate description of current Bernie than the latter.

I suspect that the reason he hasn't used the former much, if at all, is because the noun in the phrase is "Democrat". He's invested a lot of time ensuring that everyone knows that he's an Independent, so democratic socialist was probably the next best, if inaccurate, thing.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. I think law and order, white-collar style, is our best campaign issue

Bloomberg seems to understand that. So does Klobuchar.

[Perseus]

13. I don't think he plays one at all, he just had two very bad moments that are biting him

The first one in 1989 when he said he was a socialist (can't even remember what he said), and the second when he was asked a question about him being a socialist and he answered the bratty way by saying "if you think universal healthcare and free education is socialism, then sure, I am a socialist", instead of explaining to the reporter that having those social services for all the citizens of the USA was not socialism, that it is the obligation of the government to provide them. Then he should have scolded the reporter for asking stupid questions, but no, he reacted instead.

He needs to explain very clearly about his "Democratic Socialist" agenda, and go after the "socialism" that rich people and corporation enjoy at the expense of everyone else, that should shut them all up.

And Kevin Williamson needs to see Sanders agenda, I believe that once he does he will shut up. I wonder whose choice of candidate Kevin Williamson has?

SURPRISE!!!! Who is Kevin Williamson?
Kevin Daniel Williamson is an American neo-conservative political commentator.

I am sure that he will be calling other Democrats socialists as well.

A silly question, here is another article by Kevin Williamson, tell me if you think he is correct this time as well:
"The media are devoted to not covering the Biden family’s financial … shenanigans."
[link:https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/media-refuses-to-cover-joe-biden-family-corruption/|

[Cha]

20. Ouch!

[Hekate]

21. KnR to read later. Krugman is a liberal economist and always an interesting read.