Stephen
Kershnar
Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
February
15, 2016
Bernie
Sanders claims to be a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism is the notion
that there should be democratic control over the means of production (consider,
for example, the manufacturing and distribution of goods) and thus the
elimination of capitalism from the commanding heights of the economy. Sanders,
however, is better viewed as a social democrat. A social democrat believes in
the democratic regulation of capitalism with a sizable welfare state. Sanders
thinks this should be done to give the working and middle class a fair deal.
Sanders
is the sort of candidate who should not appeal to anyone over age seven. As
Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute points out, he would tank Wall Street by
raising the capital gains tax rate from 23.8% to 39.6%. This damage would be
exacerbated by a new tax on every stock trade. Corporate taxes in the U.S. are
already the highest in the world for major industrialized countries, but Bernie
ratchet them up still more, thereby driving corporations out of the country. He
would top this off with a brand spanking new carbon tax and then raise the
minimum wage to $15 an hour.
His
real enemy, though, is the rich. He would brutally assault the rich with a 90%
top tax rate (he said he would not be opposed to it), a 12.4% payroll tax on
all earnings above $250,000, a cap on CEO salaries, and a serious increase in
the estate tax (that is, the death tax). The last he would do with a rate
increase and a lowering of the amount before it kicks in.
Does
anyone really think these things wouldn’t cause the economy to go into a tailspin?
Sanders supplements these childish policies with, of course, a commitment to
amnestying millions of illegal aliens.
As
opposed to democratic socialism and Sanders’ social democracy, the case for
capitalism is straightforward. It makes people freer, makes their lives go
better, and makes them wealthier.
Economic
freedom (capitalism) makes people freer. It consists of things such as rule of
law (for example, property rights and freedom from corruption), lower taxes,
regulatory efficiency, and market openness. The more economically free people
are the less the government coercively tells them what to do. Economic freedom
also correlates with political freedom and the health of the democracy in which
people live and the degree to which they have political rights and civil
liberties, so economic freedom also makes people overall freer.
Consider
the effects of capitalism on quality of life. Increased economic freedom correlates
with increased happiness, although the rate of increase tapers off. In
addition, according to the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of economic freedom
(capitalism), using numbers from The World Bank, economic freedom correlates
with longevity to a surprisingly strong degree.
Other
measures of well-being show a similar pattern. Economic freedom (capitalism)
also correlates with greater literacy, more education, and better health. In
short, capitalism makes people’s lives go better because it makes them happier
and live longer.
The
story with wealth is similar. Capitalism correlates with greater per capita income
to a surprisingly strong degree. In summary, more economic freedom makes us, on
average, freer, happier, and wealthier.
A
democratic socialist might concede that capitalism has all these good effects,
but argue that capitalism is unjust because it unequally distributes wealth, does
not preserve equal opportunity, or fails to focus on the worst off. One
immediate problem with this objection is that it is not clear that capitalism
actually makes society unequal. The studies are mixed on whether it increases
or decreases equality.
Second,
even if capitalism does make society unequal or unjust, it is unlikely that the
badness of inequality is worse than the harm to people’s lives that will occur
if the economy tanks. The massive loss of wealth will likely make people’s
lives go less well and the government’s tightening control over our lives will
surely make us less free.
Even
the notion of unfairness to the poor is dubious. Americans’ odd of being poor
diminishes very sharply if they do three things: graduate from high school, get
married before having children, and live in a household in which at least one
person holds a full-time job. It is not unfair to ask this of people and to
refuse to wreck the economy if they choose not do these things. The wealthy
already pay far more than their share of taxes and have far less leisure time
than the middle and working classes. There is nothing fair about taking yet
more of their money when they’re already paying through the nose and working
longer hours.
A
Bernie Sanders supporter might concede that this criticism of democratic socialism
is correct, but note that Sanders is a social democrat who just wants to
drastically increase the amount of money going to the public part of the
economy relative to the private part of it. Despite Sanders’ description of
what he believes, it is not clear this is true. Sanders’ plan to have the
federal government take over the medical field via a single-payer healthcare
system reeks of socialism. His plan to make college and daycare free is likely
the first step to having the government takeover these industries. Socialists
know that an honest accounting is not in their interest.
Even
if Sanders is merely a social democrat, the same problems that accompany
reducing economic freedom apply, although to a lesser degree. Yet more intertwining
of government and industry will cause the predictable drop in freedom,
well-being, and wealth. In addition, with the national debt greater than the
economy and continuing to grow and with the major parts of the budget (social
security and Medicare) in the red and getting worse, Sanders’ spending orgy is the
height of financial irresponsibility.
Sanders
might or might not be a democratic socialist, but his childish plans are not
worthy of serious consideration.
