We could do worse than democratic socialism - By Richard Mecklenburg

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------

Mr. Mecklenburg (letter below) is responding to this letter:

Winston Churchill once said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

An affliction of progressives, conforming to a socialistic playbook, is to make us over in accordance with their views and to mandate morality and decree to “We the People” what is best for us (and use the federal government to enforce it). Self-appointed, but ill-informed, elites tell us what we can and cannot say, and what we can or cannot do.

C.S. Lewis said, “A tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”

We are being fed one-sided opinions and distortions, which are supported by the media. Congress is willingly ceding power to the executive branch, which fails to uphold the law. Too many courts interpret plainly written law as if the words mean what they want them to. Our educational system too often is teaching how to feel rather than how to think.

Relativism and permissiveness are taking over. “Sensitivity” toward the behavior of others is the vogue, and the notion that self-esteem is more important than achievement is being highly touted. The result is a grave decline in moral standards and a serious threat to our cherished freedoms.

Our government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. Instead, it is restricting freedoms and responsibilities in order to further plans for an ever more powerful government.

We must wake up to the fact that free people are not equal and equal people are not free, and we must be extremely diligent to combat these progressive trends toward socialism.

Socialism has been often tried and always failed, because, although it promises equality and prosperity, it inevitably leads to misery and poverty.

------------------------

Mr. Mecklenburg's reply:

Jack Levitt would like us to believe that we are teetering on the abyss of dreaded socialism! (If you've read Mr. Levitt's letter, he made no such statement.)

One might almost believe his dire warning of our impending fate if his Tuesday submission didn’t make the error of confusing the failed, actual socialism of past, usually despotic, regimes with the “democratic socialism” that underpins the Bernie Sanders campaign. (A distinction without a difference. I cover the slight distinctions here.)

As the concept of democratic socialism has only recently risen into public awareness with the incredible rise of the Bernie Sanders political revolution, it’s not surprising, therefore, that many mistake the two. One might be forgiven that assumption, as “socialism,” as it’s sometimes understood, refers to many failed systems, while democratic socialism is, in fact, the bedrock of every country whose social democracy system of government has provided health, wealth and security from poverty for the many, and not just the few, in multiple thriving countries. (This is false. Mr. Mecklenburg has defined "Social Democracy,", not "Democratic Socialism." 

Democratic Socialism "...rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. Democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by transitioning from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership."

Social Democracy: "Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, redistribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy."

This has been shown (and empirically assessed) by esteemed and non-partisan organizations such as the World Health Organization. (Non-partisan? Not even close.)

Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland, for instance, are among the “happiest” countries in the world (Denmark is rated the happiest). On virtually every other scale: health, education, general welfare, freedom from poverty, security in old age, etc., every social democracy slays the U.S. It’s actually embarrassing. (According to the above definitions, these countries are examples of Democratic Socialism. 

And Mr. Mecklenburg cherry-picks data. Perhaps he ought to look up suicide rates and rape statistics. 

I have relatives in Finland. They pay more than half their incomes to the government. They get stuff in return of course, but they still don't like it. They don't like paying $8/gallon for gas. They don't like not being able to afford beef. And they don't like the 9.4% unemployment rate.

And can we ask what notable contributions to science, the arts, philosophy, or technology have been made by these countries? Or is it simply enough to be fat and happy?)

I suspect Mr. Levitt knows full well that there’s not the slightest possibility of turning our rampantly-capitalistic society – our corporatocracy - into a socialist one, (As Mr. Levitt noted, it's well under way. Socialists/leftists are always pressing for more, and have sympathetic ears in the Democratic party. We are not unreasonable to expect more socialism to manifest, especially considering that Mr. mecklenburg himself writes so approvingly of it.)

despite the ravings of tea party mouthpieces that “Obama is a socialist!” But we could do a lot worse than democratic socialism. (Yes we could, but that hardly recommends it. "Hey, it's better than Socialism" is not particularly persuading.)