Thursday, November 02, 2006



A socialist in the US Senate?

The US goes to the polls next Tuesday in midterm elections, and like many people I've been watching the race with my fingers crossed for the Democrats to seize control of the legislature (or at least part of it) and finally apply some sorely needed checks and balances to the Bush Administration. But today I heard some news that I would have expected to have a much higher profile: Vermont is about to elect the first ever socialist to the US Senate. Bernie Sanders has represented the state as its sole Congressman for the past 15 years, and now he seems set to win the race for the state's vacant senate seat, with a massive 21% lead over his nearest rival. In a country which equates socialism with communism, and where anyone who isn't a total advocate of the free market is smeared as a baby-eating Stalinist, that's quite an achievement.

Posted by Idiot/Savant at 11/02/2006 03:24:00 PM

12 comments:

i agree with danyl re the dems.
and re Vermont, well, it's just not like most of the other states. there is even a strong movement in the state pushing for cessession.

 Posted by Anonymous : 11/02/2006 04:35:00 PM

It'd be cool if Vermont seceded. It's a really nice place - cold in winter though -30 last time I was there. Apparently the Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory has heaters rather than freezers.

 Posted by Rich : 11/02/2006 05:56:00 PM

Shame, Vermont used to be rock-ribbed Republicans (going back quite a way). Now they produce fruitcakes like Howard Dean. The sooner they join Canada the better.

M'lud.

 Posted by Anonymous : 11/02/2006 06:25:00 PM

Go Bernie! And if you can't do anything Bernie, Vermont can become its own republic!

 Posted by Larry Gambone : 11/02/2006 07:20:00 PM

Diebold to the rescue of the Republic, perhaps?

 Posted by Sanctuary : 11/02/2006 08:13:00 PM

First socialist, huh? Last I checked both Bush & Kerry were socialists ... after all, they both advocate:

- inheritance taxes
- progressive income tax
- public education
- state control of communications
- public transport

What this really represents is the election of the first honest socialist in the US.

 Posted by Duncan Bayne : 11/03/2006 08:28:00 AM

Just to confirm my first thoughts on reading your post I/S, Duncan got in first - there isn't a winger in the world who doesn't equate Socialism with Communism, or anyone on the left with Socialism. It suits their intellectual laziness and general reliance on polarising rhetoric over considered policy.

I don't think having the Democrats back in control of Congress will be a panacea for the US's problems. It will however stop the White House running roughshod over the American constitution and people and perhaps allow some investigations into the crimes being perpetuated by the Bush/Cheney cabal. That said, the Dems have shown little aptitude for much these last six years, so I'm not holding my breath.

 Posted by Anonymous : 11/03/2006 09:11:00 AM

There's good reason why the Dems have been completely ineffective for the past 6 years... here's why:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever/print

~ Josh

 Posted by Anonymous : 11/03/2006 09:42:00 AM

Argh! I don't think that link came thru... I've broken it up, see if that helps...

http://www.rollingstone.com/
politics/story/12055360/
cover_story_time_to_go_
inside_the_worst_congress
_ever/print

~ Josh

 Posted by Anonymous : 11/03/2006 09:43:00 AM

Pablo,

Are you aware that those points I listed were policy planks of the U.S. Socialist Party?

If you can form a decent rebuttal of my argument (which is that both the Democrats and Republicans are, in fact, socialist) then please do.

Accusing me of intellectual laziness and dependence upon rhetoric is a cop-out on your part.

 Posted by Duncan Bayne : 11/03/2006 02:09:00 PM

Duncan:

While the precise definition of socialism is debatable and contentious, most definitions require the collective (workers' or state) ownership of the means of production as a core property of the ideology.

If you mean Bush and Kerry both support a mixed economy of differing degrees - i.e. one that is not 100% lassez-faire - then you're right.

Equating 'socialism' with anything less than a (right wing) libertarian's free-market utopia is a disingenious use of the term. Using it like that strips the word of its proper use - describing an economic and political system contrasting with capitalism.

Personally I see a problem with using the word 'socialism' in that way, as you'd be pushed to find a single non-socialist state in the world.

Remove 'state control of communications' from your list, and you've described most Western liberal democracies to some extent.

Milou

 Posted by Anonymous : 11/03/2006 03:57:00 PM

Actually Duncan I accused you of polarising rhetoric. You insist that these groups are either one thing or the other, and if they aren't right-wing enough for you then they must be "socialists". Are you Redbaiter in disguise?

To accuse the Republicans of being Socialists is so utterly idiotic I nearly refrained from responding. To deny 200 years of Liberal thought from Bentham through John Stuart Mill and beyond is even more ridiculous. If you are guilty of anything with you comment it is just plain stupidity, if not laziness.

Both US parties subscribe to various degrees of Liberalism. The American Republic is founded upon Liberalism. Note the capital L. Liberalism is a philosophy, unlike, say, conservatism, or liberalism (or maybe even libertarianism), which IMHO are merely states of mind.

 Posted by Anonymous : 11/03/2006 05:52:00 PM

Post a Comment

(Anonymous comments are enabled).