Socialism is more popular among people of color, younger people, people with more education and people with less money (Pew, 6/25/19).
Ever since the Great Recession in 2008, and accelerating with Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run, there has been a resurgence of popularity and interest in socialism in the US, and an increasing skepticism of capitalism. A 2019 Pew poll (6/25/19) reported that 42% of respondents had a favorable view of socialism, with particular sympathy shown among people who are Black (65%), Latino (52%), have family incomes below $30,000 (50%) or are between the ages of 18-29 (50%). In a 2019 Gallup survey (12/18/19), 38% saw socialism positively—more than the 34% who identify as conservatives (Gallup, 7/27/20). Gallup (11/25/19) noted that Millennials were especially attracted to socialism, with slightly more viewing socialism positively than capitalism.
Democrats across the country view socialism more positively than capitalism, with a large majority willing to vote for a socialist as president. Despite questions of what the term “socialism” means to Americans, this growing interest has provoked articles decrying the “problem” that socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it does other Americans (Slate, 2/24/20). The Columbia Journalism Review (5/8/18) noticed that while “the radical left in the US has felt invigorated in recent years,” it still hasn’t “earned left-wing voices column inches in most mainstream outlets,” with coverage limited to being “about those voices, rather than by them.”
Looking at the representation of socialism among the hundreds of pundits in corporate media, one can be forgiven for almost thinking socialist pundits don’t exist.
The New York Times opinion writer Elizabeth Bruenig appears to be the only pundit employed by corporate media who both explicitly identifies as a “socialist” and makes arguments for some form of socialism in the US (Washington Post, 3/6/18).
Laurence O’Donnell, host of MSNBC’s Last Word, identifies as a “practical European socialist,” and argues that “we’re all socialists now,” because even Bill O’Reilly is in favor of “socialist programs” like Social Security and Medicare. The MSNBC host claims to “embrace” the label in order to “counterbalance” the excessive influence of McCarthyism in the US (LA Times, 3/16/13), but it’s difficult to discern a distinctly socialist perspective in his commentary.
Straightforward advocacy of socialism is something you very rarely see in corporate media (Washington Post, 3/6/18).
The Hill’s Krystal Ball (2/17/19), cohost of the show Rising, criticized Trump’s remarks claiming that “America will never be a socialist country” for presenting the false dichotomy of “smash-and-grab capitalism” or “what’s happening in Venezuela.” The class-conscious commentator described Sanders and other democratic socialists like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as “messengers for a compelling message with an actual vision.” Although she seems not to explicitly embrace the “socialist” label like Bruenig or O’Donnell, it may be fair to describe her as a democratic socialist pundit, because she often speaks favorably of the ideology, and provides a friendly platform to socialists on her show.
It appears corporate media give some degree of space for pundits to call for replacing capitalism with a new system, so long as they don’t identify themselves or that new system as “socialist.” Times columnist Michelle Alexander hasn’t explicitly identified as a socialist, but has argued (6/8/20) that “transforming our economic systems” is necessary to achieve “racial justice” and a “secure and thriving democracy,” while approvingly citing figures like W.E.B. Du Bois, Albert Einstein, Hellen Keller and Paul Robeson, all of whom argued that the US “must move toward some form of socialism.” The Post’s Katrina Vanden Heuvel also hasn’t called herself a socialist, but has argued (12/10/19) that “capitalism is broken,” and that we need a “new system to better serve the common good,” without describing this new system as “socialism.”
Although CNN’s Van Jones was involved in the early 1990s with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a defunct Maoist Bay Area group, since 2000 or so, he’s identified with the “green capitalist” movement instead (Green America, Fall/2007).
“Socialism” itself is a very contested term, and many self-described socialists may not consider some or all of these pundits to be genuine socialists. Conservatism is also a broad range of ideologies, not all of which are consistent with each other, which also has self-identified conservatives who denounce others as unworthy or inconsistent with the label (New York Times, 1/14/15; The Hill, 12/16/19). Conservative audiences are not expected to approve of all pundits who identify as conservatives, or who speak favorably of conservatism. Likewise, while some socialists may be unsatisfied with these figures, it is still significant that there are pundits who embrace being labeled a “socialist” and explicitly call for alternatives to capitalism within the US.
Venezuelan opposition figure Juan Guaidó has remarked that “socialist” figures like Ocasio-Cortez would be considered social democrats in his own country (New Yorker, 6/10/20). The Times’ Paul Krugman (2/13/20) is no socialist, but he has criticized Bernie Sanders for presenting himself as a “socialist,” rather than a “social democrat,” making himself “an easy target for right-wing smears.”
It’s more common to see criticism of capitalism (New York Times, 12/4/17)—but still not very common.
One can find criticisms of capitalism in corporate media, but that is ideologically consistent with liberals or progressives who call for government intervention to deal with market failures. Columnists like the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg (12/4/17), who noted that “capitalism looks like the god that failed” to young people because of the “increasingly oligarchic nature of our economy,” and the Times’ Nicholas Kristof (5/23/20), who condemned “dog-eat-dog capitalism for struggling workers and socialism for the rich,” are critics of capitalism in corporate media who aren’t necessarily calling for socialism.
Other pundits have normalized socialism by claiming it already exists in a limited form, because they conflate all government spending on social programs with socialism—not advocating for socialism so much as claiming that it already exists in the US. Thus the Times’ Roger Cohen (3/8/19) and the Post’s Catherine Rampell (3/21/19) argue that “Europe” demonstrates how “socialism and the free market are compatible,” and dismiss the capitalist/socialist dichotomy as not being a “meaningful binary,” because “all modern countries have elements of capitalism and socialism.” These pundits make arguments similar to O’Donnell’s, defending a socialism that’s hard to distinguish from liberalism, though without identifying with the label as O’Donnell does.
A few other commentators have praised socialism and defended figures who identify as socialists. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes defended Bernie Sanders from McCarthyite criticisms, and praised the Democratic Socialists of America. MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle has made remarks on-air that appear to defend democratic socialism, in addition to explaining why it is a more desirable alternative to communism (NBC News, 2/27/20). The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson has written several columns urging Democrats to embrace the party’s more progressive base (7/2/18, 7/1/19), and described “democratic socialism” as something that is “perfectly appropriate” for Ocasio-Cortez’s district, in addition to endorsing (1/15/15) Martin Luther King, Jr.’s call for “economic equality”—which King suggested could be called “democratic socialism” (In These Times, 1/15/18).
Like Hayes and Ruhle, Times’ columnists like Jamelle Bouie and Farhad Manjoo have published numerous columns that appear to praise socialism or policies associated with socialists, but that appears to be the farthest they can go, as neither of them have ever embraced the label (New York Times, 2/6/19, 2/14/19, 10/22/19, 3/11/20).
“Open advocacy of socialism is now a normal part of our political discourse,” writes the Washington Post‘s E.J. Dionne (2/10/19)—but it’s still not a normal part of our media conversation.
When socialism or socialists are discussed favorably, or at least not adversely, it’s often in opposition to revolutionary socialist ideologies like Marxism-Leninism (the official ideology of around 20% of the world’s population, and of the US’s greatest geopolitical rival). Democratic socialism is often contrasted with socialist states of the Global South, whether Communist countries like China or Vietnam, or multi-party systems like Venezuela or Nicaragua, which are frequently presented by even the left-most pundits as justifiable targets of imperialism. Instead, wealthy, predominantly white Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Norway are often upheld as the preferable socialist ideal (New York Times, 4/27/19).
Although the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne Jr. (2/10/19) argued that Trump and the Republican Party’s attempts to tar all Democrats as “socialist” and antithetical to “American values” will fail because “open advocacy of socialism is now a normal part of our political discourse,” it’s quite clear that McCarthyism is still constricting political discourse in the US. While socialism is being discussed more often, there’s a huge disparity between its acceptance among the US population and the representation of socialists among pundits at the biggest news outlets in the country. There are almost no pundits employed in corporate media who feel comfortable openly identifying as a socialist and calling for socialism as an alternative to capitalism.
Perhaps it’s no surprise that corporate media outlets owned by oligarchs and the investor class are hostile to socialism, but when socialist pundits are virtually nonexistent at these agenda-setting outlets, despite 76% of Democrats being willing to vote for a socialist, it’s clear that these institutions are intended to propagandize the US population into accepting the status quo. Even when politicians and policies often described as “socialist” are presented in a positive light, the fact that these journalists are uncomfortable embracing the label is evidence that McCarthyism still exercises a formidable restraint on the US political imagination and discourse.
Featured image: Democratic Socialists of America members at Occupy Wall Street, 2011 (cc photo: David Shankbone).
Great reporting, Joshua. I always wish that Americans could benefit from hearing in mainstream media the voices of folks like the late Dorothy Day and Molly Ivins, or still active folks like Noam Chomsky, Jim Hightower, Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, and many other brilliantly enlightening progressive voices writing for The Nation, Mother Jones, Alternet, Common Dreams and other venues including FAIR, voices that easily align with the Democratic Socialist platform of Bernie Sanders and others.
And guess what? That Democratic Socialist platform is almost completely aligned in so many ways with the official economic views of the Roman Catholic Church, in its doctrine of the Universal Destination of Goods: namely, that ‘the goods of the Earth are created by God for the good of all, not just for the privileged few.’ That doctrine of fairness is right there in the officially revised Catholic Catechism of the early 1990s and has been enshrined in numerous encyclicals by popes including John Paul II and certainly now Pope Francis.
I’m afraid the very article shows that we are on the wrong track. Socialism – whatever people mean by it, from a mild left social democratic view like Sanders or Omar are for to real socialism that has a few problems, too – is for all people.
A Left that is so weak that no really green or really social-democratic government is even possible (please don’t let us pretend Obama or Biden were “socialists”… they are marketradical capitalists) – – tends to fragment. Thus our ongoing split in the Left. There is not a government for people of many colours, there is – one government in the USA, and since Reagan and Clintons it devastated any social justice. For all. Such governments are really bad in shaping a society in which people of colour were not treated the horrible way they are by the police and in many places.
Yet – a weak Left that tries to separate more and more – will be loud, and NYT and Washington Post, CNN etc will present them a lot – and not much will change.
If you talk about socialism in the country that helped capitalism the most on earth so far – do not forget that younger people from around 1965-1990 were for whatever socialism far, far more. And that as people grow older, they often forget about socialism. The ones who are sick of capitalism since Reagan’s Clintons times today might in 30 years be – not so much for a mild social-democratic way.
We don’t even know what socialism means but present such statistics. Can’t we simply admit how weak this postmodern “Left” is? Torn into lots of pieces? Even some start up that wants to promote – really… – more manic aviation, but now just for people of colour, would surely be seen as “somewhat socialist”? Yet what they do is going on with the western-only exploitation of the planet by advancing MORE flying-tourism instead of better tourism.
But at the end of the day, if you fly millions to seminars where they get a lesson on slavery 10 000 miles away from home – it kills the people of colour in endangered countries, say 2100, just like if “white old men” would fly.
This is the wrong way. I never saw such a weak Left in my life.And our choice will be Biden or – beware – Trump… Please do consider to learn what socialism is… it is nothing for some only – it is for all… Black lives matter is wonderful – but socialism or Omar-Sanders had to include all who fight for justice…
I ran this comment through Google’s automatic language translator and it couldn’t identify the source language.
Can you please translate, Klemperer? All I can see is that you’re saying the left is divide. Yeh, and?
‘“Socialism” itself is a very contested term, and many self-described socialists may not consider some or all of these pundits to be genuine socialists. ‘
The term ‘democratic socialist’ is a tautological misnomer.
Socialism, as originally used by the followers of Robert Owen, appeared for the first time in their Co-operative Magazine of November 1827 and meant common ownership (not nationalisation or state capitalism). Later, in 1875, at the first meeting of the German Social Democratic Party Eduard Bernstein. and others claimed that the capitalism could be reformed to meet working class interests, By championing gradual, ethically-inspired reforms they rejected socialism’s revolutionary and materialist foundations.
Since then, the vast majority of ‘socialist’ groups individuals & proposals are better identified as left-leaning, progressive or social democrat.
‘Communist countries like China…Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Norway are often upheld as the preferable socialist ideal ‘
China is minting new billionaires at the rate of two per week. Further evidence of class division is supplied by an article titled ‘Always Stay Professional’. Inside China’s Booming Butler Schools, Nothing But the Best Will Do’ (Time, 1 November, 2017). Here we learn that some of China’s 1,590,000 millionaires wish to live the life of Riley Downtown Abbey style! And not without the benefits of modern technology. This recent review of ‘Dying for an iPhone: Apple, Foxconn, and the Lives of China’s Workers’ is informative: ‘Well-documented in the media and by labor rights groups, those conditions include exhausting work, disciplinary management style, and increasing pressure to produce in short time frames, all for meager wages’ (labournotes.org, 11 September).
“China is now an integral and irreplaceable part of global capitalism” (consortiumnews, 28 July).
Lars Løkke Rasmussen, during his time as the Prime Minister of Denmark, said that while he’s flattered to see Denmark discussed in a widely-watched US presidential debate he doesn’t think the socialist shoe fits. “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism,” he said, “therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
Norway’s government is a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal parties.
Then he’s missing the point entirely:
“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism,” he said, “therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
Democratic socialists by and large don’t want a “planned economy.” They don’t want government control over all industry and business. They want meaningful regulation of private finance and industry and a progressive tax structure that pays for social programs and resists the over-privatization of commodities and utilities, including health care and national energy production.
This article missed one important point that McCarthyism taught pundits – if you endorse left (actually, they are liberal solutions rather than socialist) solutions, it may come back and destroy your career in the future. History is littered with the broken lives and ruined careers of journalists that expressed strong support for socialism. Self censorship is a lasting legacy of McCarthyism.
I think it’d be more interesting to actually analyze the content of these espoused socialisms. Although they can generally be summed up as middle class angst, which, while it might be suppressed because it’s not in the interest of the big bourgeoisie, certainly has nothing to do with anything dangerous or revolutionary; “capitalism, but nicer” is not a threat to capitalism!
Need a new Name for it ! – As things are now any remote reference to any Social Programs designed to create more equality of wealth, justice or access to the “general welfare” that are desired by the majority and even required for a functioning Democracy seems to automatically bring out the protests of that’s “Socialism / Communism”. Europeans say Democratic Socialism but that’s just two evil words to all the pundits & reality blind people on the right. Getting rid of Citizens United along with taxing capital gains at the same progressive rates as earned income would help, but we need something to call this NEW new deal.
Since the Woodrow Wilson presidency the media, schools and other instruments of popular culture have conditioned the US masses to respond to the mere words, socialism and communism with fear and loathing the way Pavlov’s dogs salivated at the sound of the bell. American journalists, who go into paroxysms at the mention of socialism or communism, couldn’t distinguish Karl from Groucho.
This isn’t 1956 and Joseph McCarthy has been dead for 65 years, but his putrid stench still lingers in the dank, dark corners of the conservative mind.
It isn’t hard to understand. Read “The Global Media” by Ed Herman and Robert McChesney.
The entire first chapter is focused on the spread of global corporations in order to fully understand modern global media. The global media is merely the public relations/advertisement shadow of this global corporate structure, which has seen the evolution of media from being mostly political in its inception to then evolving along with capitalism to reflect and wholly support those capitalist ideals at the expense of some form of media that benefits or informs society.
Because all the major media is owned by this same class of elite businesspersons, you will never get real news again without breaking the political economic structure that gave rise to it and any media that attempts to carve out an existence in this structure while not behaving in accordance with the wishes of the owner class will be quashed with huge financial barriers and other methods to silence their independent ideas.
Any true independent media is likely to be short-lived and meagerly funded.
The sad irony is that the USA *is* a socialist country, but few in the media will admit it. Its brand of socialism, needless to say, is for the investor class and corporations, and the wealthier they are the more deserving of help from governments, which “socialize” the costs of doing business to takpayers, all the way from granting ball clubs tax rebates on stadiums to the Federal Reserve printing nearly free money it distributes to banks and their big customers rather than to state and local governments or the population at large. To call our economy “free-market” is to make a sick joke.
You are a disgrace to the American people and you should leave this country .If you want socialist than go to China or Vietnam and than I know for facts that you are going to change your mind when and if can get back .
TRUMP WON
BIDEN IS THE EMENY OF THE STATES AND THE CONSITUTION LAWS