Socialism in America

by

Gadfly

           President Trump has on numerous occasions asserted that America will never be a socialist nation.  Most visibly prompting these claims are the presence of self-proclaimed socialists in today’s politics:  Bernie Sanders, AOC, and so forth.


           Surveys reveal that the perceived idea of socialism is increasingly popular among Generation Z (age 5 to 25) and Millennials (or Generation Y; age 26 to 40).  Millennials and Generation Z will make up 37% of the electorate going into the 2020 election.  Generation Z prefers socialism to capitalism.


           According to Gallup, 4 out of 10 American voters support socialism in some form.  Yet, even though a slight majority of American voters do not support socialism, according to another recent survey, 77% of registered Democrats do.  Another survey by Pew Research captures the more complex nature of views related to capitalism and socialism.


           So, is America on the brink of becoming a socialist nation?  This is a binary question that implies a yes or no answer.
  

           A more precise question is to what extent is America already a socialist nation?  The answer is:  socialist elements already exist.  For an excellent bibliography of socialism, see Independent Institute’s article, “Best Books on the Folly of Socialism” (please spend some time reviewing the discussion that follows the article).
  

How do we know?  One of the central features of socialism is central planning.

What is central planning and what does it look like?

Central planning is a noble lie (see my article on Noble Lies) concept where elite in a collectivist system organize society for some social goal (with political and economic dimensions).  Here is a quote from the Chapter, “Planning and Democracy,” in F. A. Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom:

The common features of all collectivist systems may be described, in a phrase ever dear to socialists of all schools, as the deliberate organization of the labors of society for a definite social goal. That our present society lacks such “conscious” direction toward a single aim, that its activities are guided by the whims and fancies of irresponsible individuals, has always been one of the main complaints of its socialist critics.

In many ways, this puts the basic issue very clearly.  And it directs us at once to the point where the conflict arises between individual freedom and collectivism.  The various kinds of collectivism, communism, fascism, etc., differ among themselves in the nature of the goal toward which they want to direct the efforts of society.  But they all differ from liberalism and individualism in wanting to organize the whole of society and all its resources for this unitary end and in refusing to recognize autonomous spheres in which the ends of the individuals are supreme.  In short, they are totalitarian in the true sense of this new word which we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call collectivism (p. 100; bold, italics are mine).

           Collectivism is fully manifested in America, where political elite are using the alleged COVID-19 crisis to advance the unitary end of safety.  Unfortunately, far too many Americans have lost their understanding and meaning of the concept of liberty; thus, they have been vulnerable to this very deliberate form of collectivism.  Therefore the socialist political elite assume they can exploit the “whims and fancies of irresponsible individuals."


           A proper understanding of the concept of liberty is the freedom to act as one chooses, provided it does no harm to others and is consistent with the rule of law.  American liberty that has been grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition also involves a sense of personal responsibility for oneself and others, to be a good person, a good son and daughter, a good husband and wife, a good father and mother, a good neighbor, a good employee, a good citizen, and so forth.  This understanding has diminished over the years due mostly to secular humanism and an entitlement mentality.


           As I have previously cited in previous articles, Alexis de Tocqueville predicted these developments in his Democracy in America:

After having thus successfully taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community.  It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.  The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided:  men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting:  such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.  . . .  They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1840, p. 398).

Tyranny in America
          

I have watched with great dismay, this form of tyranny descending upon our nation.  While President Trump has resisted imposing this kind of tyranny at the national level (issuing instead guidelines informed by “the experts”), many state governors have not.

  

Since I am a resident of Colorado, I will use Colorado as an example.  Governor Polis has issued orders to shut down restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, schools, and essentially churches.  Certain facilities could remain open with restrictions, such as grocery stores, food takeout, and so forth.  This week, I learned the Governor will keep schools closed through December.  What is the overall unitary goal?  Public health safety.  With all the closures, hundreds of thousands of Coloradoans are filing for unemployment compensation.  Nationally, we’re now approaching $3 trillion in emergency economic recovering funding—all funded by debt.

What Is the Science?

As a former university professor (with a Ph.D.) and technical think tank analysist, I have been trying to understand the so called science justifying these actions.  It is dubious at best.  I do not trust what is being reported.

First, let’s start with a display that an ordinary person might see if they do a Bing.com search using the search term, “COVID-19 data.”  Here is one of the displays:

           The number of deaths reported:  50,177 for the United States and, in this image, 552 for Colorado.


           Consulting the CDC website, Table 1 below, as of April 23, 2020 reports a total of 23,358 COVID-19 deaths.  This number includes confirmed and presumed COVID-17 deaths (see footnotes below the Table).  The total number of pneumonia deaths is 53,768 (more than double COVID-17 deaths).  Influenza death totals (between the week ending 2/1/2020 to 4/18/2020) are 5,530.  Note the footnote suggests some influenza deaths may include presumed COVID-19.  Earlier in the year, CDC reported 24,000 influenza deaths (before COVID became a player).

           NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.

*Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

¹Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1.

²Pneumonia death counts exclude pneumonia deaths involving influenza.

³Influenza death counts include deaths with pneumonia or COVID-19 also listed as a cause of death.

⁴Population is based on 2018 postcensal estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau (9)

           Here is another qualifier regarding COVID-19 cause of death.  CDC issued guidance on determining the underlying cause of death (UCOD) when it relates to COVID-19.  Here is the essence of the guidance:
  

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible.

This is an example of “science” coming from the CDC.  I could find no other similar guidance for other infectious diseases.  So, a lot of the “data” being used for guiding policy decisions is based on guesses (“probable” or “presumed”.

  

Table 2 below shows the number of deaths by age group.  Note that for the groups 65 and older, 18,439 account for the 23,358 total or 79% under COVID-19.  The same group accounts for 43,664 of 53,768 pneumonia deaths, or 81%.  The same group accounts for 3,594 of 5,530 influenza deaths, or 65%.  In terms of the overall population, 23,358 COVID-19 total deaths out of 327,167,434 is .007%.

Table 5 below provides data for each state.  The graphic below is truncated to include Colorado, which shows 348 COVID-19 deaths, 809 pneumonia deaths, and 90 influenza deaths.  These data are different from that being reported on the Graphic above on the Bing.com website (552 COVID-19 deaths).

     

           So, what are we to conclude from the above data presentations?  First, it is far from certain, especially when any of it includes guessing.  Second, the guessing likely suffers from confirmation bias with the rampant fear generated in the public narrative.  Third, most of the “science” that seems to guide the current public policy paradigm comes from technocrats.
  

Technocrats

In his recent book, The Storm before the Calm:  America’s Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond, George Friedman describes the American technocrat:

The idea that emerged from both the New Deal and World War II was that a state managed by experts dedicated to solutions without an ideology would do for the country what it did for the war:  it would breed success.  But of course, this became a principle, the principle became a belief, and the belief became an ideology.  The ideology created a class who felt entitled to govern and who were believed to be suitable to govern.  . . .

The focus of the technocracy was social engineering, restructuring the way in which economic and social institutions worked in order to improve the lives of citizens. (p. 105).

CDC’s Dr. Fauci is a technocrat.  His credibility is beyond reproach by the left.  The left relishes the daily White House press briefing when Dr. Fauci appears to contradict something President Trump has said.  For example, President Trump seemed optimistic about hydroxychloroquine as a possible remedy.  Dr. Fauci argued that it had not been proven through clinical testing.  Thus, he debunked the study published by several French doctors (available here) because it was not set up using the clinical testing paradigm that the CDC considers the gold standard.

  

The French doctors that conducted the study concluded: “Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.”

  

Despite the actual evidence of successful use of hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin in the French study, it was of no value to Dr. Fauci and fellow technocrats. In fact, Google, You Tube, Facebook, and Twitter have warned viewers that the study provides misinformation.

  

Most recently, when President Trump suggested we will get COVID-19 behind us moving into the summer, Dr. Fauci contradicted him by say COVID-19 will be with us going into the fall.  How does he know?  CDC can’t even collect accurate data and he is predicting with certainty that COVID-19 will be with us going into the fall?

  

Predicting or even forecasting is very difficult.  Scientists can’t even predict the weather.  Therefore we see weather forecasts.  Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner wrote about this in their recent book, Super Forecasting.  “In this groundbreaking and accessible book, Tetlock and Gardner show . . . that good forecasting doesn’t require powerful computers or arcane methods. It involves gathering evidence from a variety of sources, thinking probabilistically, working in teams, keeping score, and being willing to admit error and change course.”

           For his part, President Trump appears to have surrounded himself with a variety of sources, has formed teams (task forces), and has adjusted along the way to keep America safe and also economically sound.
  

Unfortunately, President Trump is swimming against ideological currents.

Conditions Ripe for Socialism


           Even before the COVID-19 crisis, there were conditions lending themselves to fulfilling the Cloward-Piven Strategy published in the 1960s. The strategy called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".  Cloward and Piven, Columbia University Professors were self-proclaimed socialists.


           The following graphic from the Manhattan Institute shows the difference in the percentage of mandatory (welfare/entitlement) spending in 1965 (34%) and 2019 (70%):

           Despite the nearly doubling of mandatory spending of a constantly increasing federal budget, poverty levels have remained essentially the same percentage of the population.


           Yet, a more disturbing demographic is the gradual reduction of the labor participation rate.  In the last two decades (2000-2020), the passing of the Affordable Care Act of 2009 had a significant impact on the labor participation rate, when employees lost their jobs due to employer mandates.  The rate hovers at aroung 63%.  See the graphic below (retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics):

           Since state Governors have essentially placed their states in lock down status, over 22 million have filed claims for unemployment compensation.  This number represents 13.5% of the labor force.  How many of these individuals will be able to return to their jobs when lock downs are reversed?  If many do not, the labor participation rate could approach 50%--half of our labor force actually working, the other half on welfare.


           Combine these changes with our medical infrastructure impact (many healthcare professionals not directly associated with COVID-19 have been furloughed), there will be additional ammunition for universal healthcare.  For compelling analysis along these lines (and the large number of deaths due to the ban on elective procedures) see articles by A.J. Kay here and here.


Conclusion


           America is on the verge of becoming a socialist nation.  The COVID-19 crisis is an instrument in the hands of the left to push America across the threshold.  The narrative on this crisis is shaped by technocrats and amplified by leftist politicians and the mainstream media.  Since many, if not most, Americans have lost their understanding of liberty (and the reason a Constitutional Republic was established to protect it), they are vulnerable to the tyrannical, collectivist actions in pursuit of a unitary goal:  safety.  Yet, even safety is a means for achieving the ultimate goal of a single party (collectivist) rule of American society.


           If Democrats keep the House and take the Senate and President Trump wins reelection, he’ll be a four-year lame duck President.  If President Trump loses.  America will cross the socialist threshold.  Many, many Americans will then lament, “We did not know” (a refrain so common among Germans after Hitler gained power and took Germany and the world on a horrific path—see this clip from Judgment at Nuremberg).

.

A Ruling Class?

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, is there anything in particular about the presidential campaigning that concerns you?

AM:  Two quick observations:  First, one party seems unified in its political ideology while the other shows a diversified set of candidates.  Second, it amazes me that there is so much support for a self-proclaimed socialist and for an individual who appears to be above the law.

Old Gadfly:  What is wrong with socialism?

AM:   Gadfly, you and I each served over 30 years to defend our Nation against the inevitable tyranny that stems from socialism.  Socialism, which is advanced by intellectuals as a form of utopia this side of death, is not sustainable.  It is a transition phase that transforms into either communism or fascism.  Just look at all the promises being made by some of the candidates?  How can an economy generate enough wealth to sustain this volume of welfare?  We already have nearly $20 trillion in public debt, not to mention the unfunded liabilities that are five to six times the public debt.

Old Gadfly:  Go to my bookshelf and pull down Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.  Good, now locate the chapter entitled, “What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear.”  Read the first sentence out loud.

AM:    “I had remarked during my stay in the United States, that a democratic state of society, similar to that of Americans, might offer singular facilities for the establishment of despotism; and I perceived, upon my return to Europe, how much use had already been made by most of our rulers, of the notions, the sentiments, and the wants engendered by this same social condition, for the purpose of extending the circle of their power.”[1]

IM:  Amazing.  Tocqville wrote this book between 1835 and 1840.

Old Gadfly:  Notice Tocqueville’s observation of how rulers exploit “notions, sentiments, and the wants” of other members of society “for the purpose of extending the circle of their power.”  Incidentally, another great mind who is less recognized and appreciated is another Frenchman, Frédéric Bastiat, who in 1850 published an important rebuttal to the socialistic thinking that dominated Western Europe.  His book, The Law, argued for the importance of laws in protecting and enabling individual liberty.

IM:  Combining the observations and arguments of Tocqueville and Bastiat, it appears that a ruling class in a socialistic society is above the law.  They must be in order to have power over the masses.  Despite the concerted and complicit suppression of important news within the mainstream media, there is one candidate right now who denies any criminal behavior despite the growing body of evidence to the contrary.

AM:  Yet, many of her followers dismiss this as a fabrication of a “right wing conspiracy.”

Old Gadfly:  The notorious tyrants of the recent past (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc.) knew that narratives did not need to be true, but merely plausible.  People are inclined to believe what they want to believe.  AM, now locate the fifth paragraph in the chapter about despotism.

AM:    Here it is. I’ll insert some editorial comments within brackets:

After having thus successfully taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community.  It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules [i.e., promulgated by an unelected bureaucracy via administrative law], minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.  The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided:  men are seldom forced by it to act [the Affordable Care Act is such a case], but they are constantly restrained from acting [e.g., IRS censorship of certain voices]:  such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence [e.g., Dinesh D’Souza prosecution and conviction]; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.  I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.  Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free:  as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once.  They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people.[2]      

Old Gadfly:  Thank you, AM.  I would encourage you to eventually read the entire chapter, but you’ve read enough for us to get the point for now.  While it is obvious that Tocqueville had a deep appreciation for how democracy might play out in America, the transformation to a central government controlled by a ruling class is certainly the case for today’s America.

IM:  What is the ruling class?

Old Gadfly:  The ruling class comprises elected and unelected members of government and the lobbyists that keep them there.  It has grown significantly, especially since the individual income tax was reestablished in 1913 with the Sixteenth Amendment.  Based on government data, here is a graph that reflects my calculations for the cost of the federal government in constant dollars (i.e., accounting for inflation) per capita (accounts for population growth):

 

            This graph does not reflect the most recent budget, which would make the picture look even worse. 

If one is a socialist or progressive, there is an assumption that governments solve problems.  The above graph shows that citizens have been coerced by federal law to provide more and more of their wealth through taxes or public debt.  These resources are then supposed to “solve problems” for society.  Recently, the noted political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, provided extensive analysis to support his thesis that America is in decay.  This decay stems from political dysfunction.  I contend this dysfunction reflects the progressive disdain for the Constitution and the concept of federalism, and a passion for an unelected administrative state.  Charles Cooper, a constitutional lawyer, presented a compelling article on this threat to our way of life.

AM:  I have a lot of friends who are very concerned about this development.

IM:  Notice that for both political parties, most of the candidates have been elected to office—career politicians so to speak.  But there are three who are not career politicians:  Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina.

Old Gadfly:  What might we infer from their presence and the apparent interest in these candidates?

AM:  They do not represent the ruling class that many in the public narrative call “the establishment.”  This might especially explain why Donald Trump has such a large following so far.

IM:  Yet, those who denigrate Trump for whatever reason are concerned that he may lack the experience and skills to be effective as the President of the United States.

AM:  This kind of argument assumes a philosopher king and not the executive of a government originally designed to be limited with enumerated powers delegated by the people [who are not timid and industrious sheep], and balanced through checks and balances and federalism.

IM:  I think those who have confidence in Trump see a man who has lived the American dream, a man who created jobs and built things within a system of laws and free enterprise.

Old Gadfly:  Some say he’s crass.

AM:  I see a breath of fresh air in what I consider to be authentic and sincere expression.  Trump talks about ideas and issues that concern others who want to be freer and less regulated by a ruling class.  I see a man who is not timid, and who refuses to be an industrious sheep.  I see a man who risks criticism and invests his own earned wealth to be an example for others to have the courage to exercise liberty within a system of laws that apply to everyone.  Remember, Tocqueville warned us:  “After having thus successfully taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community.”  Trump represents a contrary force in our society.

Old Gadfly:  Good point, AM.  Some in America are drawn more to rhetoric (hope and change) as opposed to real achievement (creating businesses and jobs and building things).  IM, what do you say about the candidates from the other party?

IM:   Until he dropped out, James Webb offered a potential candidacy that was more constitutional, and less ruling class in nature.  Unfortunately, the remaining candidates are socialistic, even the one who denies being socialistic, yet claiming instead to be progressive.  If we agree with Tocqueville’s observations and arguments, then I think his prophecy was fairly accurate for those who affiliate with or submit to a socialistic or progressive candidate.  They can be counted upon to be “timid and industrious animals” in the progressive march toward socialism.

AM:  Aren’t some Republicans progressive?

IM:    If a more centralized government is a feature of progressivism, then yes.  However, if these individuals are truly progressive and socialistic, then they are really Democrats in Republican clothing.  On the contrary, most Republicans who appear to support a larger and more centralized government are more likely to have succumbed to being a member of “the establishment” or ruling class.  This may explain crony capitalism and corporate welfare that corrupts and perpetuates the establishment, or ruling class in both parties.

Old Gadfly:  Do we have a candidate that might have a vision and capacity for getting America out of this quagmire?

AM:  Ironically, one candidate talks about making America great again.

Old Gadfly:  This is a good start.  Hopefully this candidate understands that moral and virtuous character provided the inspiration and that the Constitution provided the structure and blue print for a once prosperous and peaceful nation.  But most importantly, the outcome of the election will be determined by a collective “we the people” that prefers individual freedom and the responsibility and accountability of self-governance through a system of laws that ensures justice for all.  Americans have outsourced political power over the years and deserve the government that we have.  “We the people” still have a choice:  (a) to remain timid and industrious animals guided by the recent attempt to transform America; or (b) to shape a government that protects the real American ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not an imagined utopia that ruling class progressives or socialists promise.    

---

[1] Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Complete (translated by Henry Reeve), Volume I, 1835; Volume II, 1840.  ISBN-13:978-1508419129, p. 396.

[2] Ibid, p. 398.