Was Norman Thomas right?

[David S]

Norman Thomas, a former U.S. Socialist
Presidential Candidate   once made this comment:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Was he right?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This is somewhat correct...

The platform of Thomas's Socialist Party for his 1948 presidential run bears very striking similarities to LBJ's Great Society programs in the 1960's....I wrote a paper on this back in college.

I just wished we had continued this progress...even liberalism has now been in serious abeyance for a quarter century.

[minionofmidas]

"You may be the better journalist, but I am a much better politician than you." FDR to Norman Thomas, 1932.

[lidaker]

It is true that what is called socialist and social democratic in Europe is called liberal in America. I watched Michael Dukakis's acceptence speech on C-SPAN the other day - it was a standard social democratic vision. But it doesn't seem like America is heading in that direction.

[migrendel]

I don't think America is temperamentally suited for democratic socialism, at least not for a generation or so. Sadly to say, I think the chances of adopting even modest programs like universal healthcare are quite remote at the present.

[Schmitz in 1972]

It's truly frightening how accurate Norman Thomas's statemate is.

[Giant Saguaro]

The first sentence is correct. Thank the Lord.

The second sentence has seemed incorrect mostly throughout our history. In modern times, we got closest to it under FDR. LBJ wanted us to go there, but we fought him and rejected it. Carter wanted to take us there and we rejected it soundly. Mondale and Dukakis likewise, and they were flatly rejected. Clinton ended the welfare state as we knew it. Libs have been on a losing streak since FDR on this one. And we keep moving further from it. Almost no one wants the label of "liberal Democrat."

[David S]

The first sentence is correct. Thank the Lord.

The second sentence has seemed incorrect mostly throughout our history. In modern times, we got closest to it under FDR. LBJ wanted us to go there, but we fought him and rejected it. Carter wanted to take us there and we rejected it soundly. Mondale and Dukakis likewise, and they were flatly rejected. Clinton ended the welfare state as we knew it. Libs have been on a losing streak since FDR on this one. And we keep moving further from it. Almost no one wants the label of "liberal Democrat."

If Federal spending on social programs can be used as a measure of socialism then it seems that socialism has been growing steadily since 1940, as shown in the following website;

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fed_budget.htm

[Giant Saguaro]

The first sentence is correct. Thank the Lord.

The second sentence has seemed incorrect mostly throughout our history. In modern times, we got closest to it under FDR. LBJ wanted us to go there, but we fought him and rejected it. Carter wanted to take us there and we rejected it soundly. Mondale and Dukakis likewise, and they were flatly rejected. Clinton ended the welfare state as we knew it. Libs have been on a losing streak since FDR on this one. And we keep moving further from it. Almost no one wants the label of "liberal Democrat."

If Federal spending on social programs can be used as a measure of socialism then it seems that socialism has been growing steadily since 1940, as shown in the following website;

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fed_budget.htm

Man, that's messed up, David S, that's jacked up. That goes against everything I've read, heard, seen, and so on and so forth. Interesting graph. Must certainly have to do with a bigger economy, bigger population, and people living longer. I don't know. At least it dipped when Reagan was in and he cut all KINDS of social spending, as did all of them since him, but according to the graph, it gets higher and higher. Hmm. Scaling back the military after the fall of the Soviet Union through Clinton to Bush 43 I've said was a bad idea, and it may well be reflected here.

[A18]

Nah. I think the 'liberal' movement is about dead.

[Beet]

Perhaps this graphic is a little less misleading/agenda-driven. It is from a shady little internet site called the Congressional Budget Office

Federal Outlays, 1962 to 2001 (as percentage of GDP)



Federal Receipts, 1962-2003 (as percentage of GDP)

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table4

Virtually all the increase in social spending comes from demographic changes. This is what explains the seeming contradiction between the drastic decline of social programs since Reagan and the increase in "social spending". The answer is that existing programs, namely Social Security, and to a smaller extent medicare, are costing a lot more because of rising health care costs and retired seniors as a rising percentage of the population. This problem will only get worse after 2010 when the boomers start retiring. That is why Social Security needs some deep reform... and reform is going to happen eventually, no matter who gets elected, because it will have to happen if the government is to remain in any decent fiscal shape.

[David S]

Perhaps this graphic is a little less misleading/agenda-driven. It is from a shady little internet site called the Congressional Budget Office

Federal Outlays, 1962 to 2001 (as percentage of GDP)



Federal Receipts, 1962-2003 (as percentage of GDP)

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table4

Virtually all the increase in social spending comes from demographic changes. This is what explains the seeming contradiction between the drastic decline of social programs since Reagan and the increase in "social spending". The answer is that existing programs, namely Social Security, and to a smaller extent medicare, are costing a lot more because of rising health care costs and retired seniors as a rising percentage of the population. This problem will only get worse after 2010 when the boomers start retiring. That is why Social Security needs some deep reform... and reform is going to happen eventually, no matter who gets elected, because it will have to happen if the government is to remain in any decent fiscal shape.

I believe both graphs are valid, but there are 3 differences in the data plotted:
1) Your data is based on spending as a percentage of GDP, whereas Hodges is based on spending as a percentage of National Income, a smaller figure.
2) Your plot goes from 1962 to 2001. Hodges goes from 1947 to 2002. So the increase Hodges shows is over a longer time span and shows of course a greater growth in spending.
3) The other plots, defense, interest etc are shown individually in Hodges plots whereas your plots are cumulative. That is it starts with Social spending, then shows defense added to that and so on.
I think there are other differences such as what is included in social programs. But your graph also shows the Social programs growing about 2 or 2 and 1/2 times from 1962 to 2001. That's about the same as Hodges. Your data is from a government source and is reliable, but Hodges data is extracted from another government agency, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and is also reliable.

[Beet]

David,

Firstly...
1) I linked directly to the CBO website, the graphic and table were created by the CBO. Therefore it is the CBO's data. Not mine.
2) Hodges created the graphics and tables himself to make them look as dramatic as possible, and inserted a BEA label on them. Therefore they are Hodges's tables. Not the BEA's.

I agree that both charts are truthful, but feel there is a bigger difference than you said.

1) Hodges's chart on Federal Spending implies a linear rising trend on total spending by giving very patchy data, when the CBO data clearly shows no such linear trend.

2) The CBO data in fact shows a long-term decline in total spending, with no increase over the past two generations, a huge fact hidden by Hodges.

3) Hodges lumps all social programs together, whereas the CBO separates out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is these three programs that have risen, due to the factors I mentioned.

Hodges' chart going back to 1947 does show one interesting result however. It shows that defense spending in 2003 and in 1948 were about the same, something missed from the CBO report. That would make sense because in 1948, the Cold War was just heating up, and there were no Korean or Vietnam wars yet.

Also, Hodges did not mention revenues. The revenue side is actually more important probably because usually people who look at this stuff are concerned about taxes. Spending doesn't correlate with taxes due to deficits, which have clearly rising. The CBO shows revenues in 2003 as a share of GDP were the lowest on its record since 1962.

[12th Doctor]

Norman Thomas, a former U.S. Socialist
Presidential Candidate   once made this comment:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Was he right?

We are well on our way to that.

[Nym90]

I think what Thomas was getting at is that "socialism" is a dirty word, but that people don't actually oppose the individual components of it that much, it's just really the idea that people don't like.


And that's been shown to be true in polls too...when you ask whether or not people support the individual ideas of liberalism, they often will answer yes, but at the same time more people say they are conservative than liberal.

[dazzleman]

I think what Thomas was getting at is that "socialism" is a dirty word, but that people don't actually oppose the individual components of it that much, it's just really the idea that people don't like.


And that's been shown to be true in polls too...when you ask whether or not people support the individual ideas of liberalism, they often will answer yes, but at the same time more people say they are conservative than liberal.

I think a lot depends on how the question is posed.

If the questions are posed to me the right way, even I will answer as a liberal.  But the problem is when you put the whole package together, and examine the costs and other consequences.  That's when people start to get off the bus.

Universal medical care is a perfect example.  Most people would say that they are for it, in one form or another.  But once the practical realities come into it, and people realize that it means they'll pay more money for inferior care than they have now, they turn against the plan.  A good example of this is the defeat by a pretty wide margin, in the liberal state of Oregon, of a plan for universal medical coverage.

The reality is that people support certain goals in a general sense, but are often not able to accept the specifics of whatever plans are suggested to meet these goals.  School integration is another good example of this - everybody SAYS they're for it, but most people oppose the specifics of it, and do all they can to avoid it.

[Nym90]

Regarding health care, what about the concept of a voucher that citizens could use to pay for their own private care? I don't see why that would lead to inferior quality. Simply have the government pay for basic health care at private institutions.

[dazzleman]

Regarding health care, what about the concept of a voucher that citizens could use to pay for their own private care? I don't see why that would lead to inferior quality. Simply have the government pay for basic health care at private institutions.

Would the voucher be expressed in dollars or in services provided?

What I fear is that the person who pays the bills calls the tunes.  If government is effectively setting prices for medical services and drugs, you will surely see a deterioration in the quality of care provided.  That will be government's way of effectively rationing health care, as is done in other countries with socialized medicine.

What would then happen is that those with more money would opt out of the system by paying privately for services, and the middle class will be pulled down to the level of the poor.  That is what happened to public education in certain areas (mainly urban) when government intervened in the name of "equality" and it will happen in health care too.

I don't deny there's a problem, but the solution may actually lie in the other direction - in bringing market forces to bear in the health care business to a greater extent.  The HMOs, and government, have attempted to impose market discipline from the top down, but the consumer can impose it much better from the bottom up.

There is no perfect solution, but I fear greater intervention from a government that has demonstrated that it usually makes things worse when it gets involved.  I think we need to examine a wide range of ideas very carefully.  The majority of people who currently have decent coverage stand a lot to lose if reforms are poorly implemented.

I would also add that no fix to the system is possible without serious legal reform that sharply reduces the cost of frivolous lawsuits, which are currently destroying the system.

[W in 2004]

Regarding health care, what about the concept of a voucher that citizens could use to pay for their own private care? I don't see why that would lead to inferior quality. Simply have the government pay for basic health care at private institutions.

Hahahahaha!!!  I found you, Nym90.  You can run, but you can’t hide.  Come on buddy we need to have a talk in the “Why I’m a Democrat” thread in Individual Politics.  Everyone who wants to should come and check out that thread.

[David S]

Beet
Your comments are thoughtful and well reasoned, based on facts and figures. But the conclusion I see, using CBO data or Hodges, is that the spending on social programs has grown rapidly since 1962. The combined cost of Medicare and Medicaid from CBO data at
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table9  has grown from 4.4 billion in 1967 to 434 billion in 2003. That is nearly a 100 fold increase; far in excess of inflation. What will those costs look like when the baby-boomers start retiring and needing more medical care? Throw in Bush’s Rx program and the costs go up even faster.
I don’t think this is just a coincidence. It is an unavoidable consequence of socialism. Other undesirable results which the Canadian and British health care programs have already experienced are wage and price control, (makes doctors unhappy), rationing, shortages and waiting lines (makes patients unhappy). No improvement is in sight.
Capitalism uses the competitive free market system to keep prices under control, and ultimately works better much than socialism.

[Nym90]

Regarding health care, what about the concept of a voucher that citizens could use to pay for their own private care? I don't see why that would lead to inferior quality. Simply have the government pay for basic health care at private institutions.

Hahahahaha!!!  I found you, Nym90.  You can run, but you can’t hide.  Come on buddy we need to have a talk in the “Why I’m a Democrat” thread in Individual Politics.  Everyone who wants to should come and check out that thread.

I'm not hiding, I just haven't had time yet to write a good response. Honest! I'll respond.

[Beet]

Beet
Your comments are thoughtful and well reasoned, based on facts and figures. But the conclusion I see, using CBO data or Hodges, is that the spending on social programs has grown rapidly since 1962. The combined cost of Medicare and Medicaid from CBO data at
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table9  has grown from 4.4 billion in 1967 to 434 billion in 2003. That is nearly a 100 fold increase; far in excess of inflation. What will those costs look like when the baby-boomers start retiring and needing more medical care? Throw in Bush’s Rx program and the costs go up even faster.
I don’t think this is just a coincidence. It is an unavoidable consequence of socialism. Other undesirable results which the Canadian and British health care programs have already experienced are wage and price control, (makes doctors unhappy), rationing, shortages and waiting lines (makes patients unhappy). No improvement is in sight.
Capitalism uses the competitive free market system to keep prices under control, and ultimately works better much than socialism.

David, I think we basically agree that the Social Security and Medicare problems are deeply flawed; and Bush is just expanding it. Cost estimates over the next several decades on these program run into the tens of trillions of dollars. The reasons for this are not new legislation, but demographic changes that mean existing entitlement programs cost more. This is an area where I probably agree more with the Libertarians than either Bush or Kerry... these programs, especially Social Security, needs a substantial overhaul. One answer is that Social Security should be curtailed and limited to what it was originally intended for, which was to ensure general social stability in times of extreme economic hardship and widespread losses on capital markets and derivative markets. To allow seniors to retire at this point the government should set aside some money, but should not release it to those seniors who are already well off in times of economic growth or stability. Another answer is that the retirement age should simply rise to 67, which would cut out the vast majority of the problems. Eventually, I seriously doubt the government is going to end up paying for this program, which is why I am not planning anything with the assumption that social security will be there.