Equating Socialism with Communism, Why the Debate

In a recent editorial in the Miami Herald, Fabiola Santiago called out Senator Marco Rubio (both from Miami) for his fearmongering.  The title of the article was: "Marco Rubio is fearmongering and playing to people’s ignorance about socialism."  Her primary thrust was Senator Rubio's conflation of socialism and communism.  This was in response to a Rubio tweet regarding an upcoming democratic debate to be held in Miami.  The senator argued that Miami was an inappropriate venue as many in this community were victims of Castro's communism, Venezuela's Maduro, or Nicaragua's SNLF, and many of their socialist tenants.

I, for one, applaud Ms. Santiago's challenging Senator Rubio (aka "Little Marco Rubio, the lightweight no show Senator from Florida," as Trump called him in a 2016 tweet). This indiscriminate labeling of something or someone as "socialist" and trying to equate that with something abhorrent or evil should have been beneath someone as educated as this Miami politician. You can't cherry-pick various features of socialism as defined in Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela, and use that broad brush to color all its variations. Sen. Rubio's equivocation of socialism with communism is just as inappropriate as candidate/president Trump's namecalling.

Democratic socialism is an essential part of the fabric of American democracy and its capitalistic foundations. This fabric was woven over time and many years of legislative refinement. It would be impossible to remove socialism in our government without destroying all that we hold dear about our democracy. It is the balance between socialism and capitalism that needs to be maintained. Extremes favoring one doctrine over the other in their entirety is not viable. It is a well working democratic government that can maintain that balance. The people, in fair and open elections, select representatives to assure the balance is achieved.

Our current problems stem from public corruption of our electoral process by a monied elite. Money and power can buy elections, buy access to political decision-makers, and purchase favorable legislation. The cost of such access to our current president is $200,000 which buys a membership at Mar-a-Lago. This fee was doubled from its former level of $100,000 when Trump became president.

Money placed in the right political hands has long tilted the scales in favor of the wealthy. While a healthy business environment is laudable, when any business uses their wealth to avoid fair taxation, pollute the environment, pay substandard wages, or pay for legislation that benefits them over their competition, that business needs government oversite and control. Some democratic socialists would go to the other extreme and say that businesses should be worker/consumer-owned. As mentioned previously, such extremes should not be a goal of any government.

How Many Of These Are You Willing to Give Up?

Capitalists, on the other hand, would probably not want to give up their highway system, police force, fire departments, emergency services, military, expectations of a safe food supply, uncontaminated medications, clean drinking water, clean air to breath, or a national parks system to visit. All of these entities reek of socialism as they are provided for the common good. Many among the working class vote emotion rather than an informed sense of what might be in their best interest. Long term financial security (Social Security), fair wages, medical coverage for all, access to a quality education that prepares one to compete in a modern economy, are all goals of the new socialists. It should be the duty of the candidates in the upcoming 2020 elections to get the word to middle America so that they understand how to vote for their own welfare and not some vaporous utopian promise.

Most fair-minded citizens just want a level playing field where all individuals are afforded the opportunity to succeed. Our goal should not be the elimination of private corporations but one where those businesses are allowed to flourish. It will be up to the government to use regulations and tax incentives to encourage those companies to act in the public interest and discourage destructive activities.

I will close with an excerpt from Ms. Santiago's article:

Despite the edicts of authoritarian Trump and his followers, despite the role big money is playing in elections with the blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court, this is still a free country.

People running for office can present their views — whatever they may be — and nothing is off the table. Voters are the ones with the power to decide what they like, what they dislike, what they find offensive, what they find inspiring — and then show it at the ballot box.