ARTICLES BY TOPIC

Why the Social Democrat?

W. E. Smith, Editor, The Social Democrat

With so many online news sites already active on the Web, the question arises, why The Social Democrat? What motivated me to start the site? Why do I consider it worth producing and, also, worth following?

I started The Social Democrat to promote awareness of and generate enthusiasm and support for the political system known as social democracy: a system of political, social and economic organization based on a chiefly private-enterprise economy (“capitalism”) with a government that does not hesitate to use its plenipotentiary powers to ensure that all citizens, from childhood on, are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in the social, cultural, economic and political life of their communities and nation. Generally considered to have found its fullest expression in Scandinavian nations during the second half of the 20^th Century, but also widely practiced throughout Europe, social democracy is associated with a comprehensive social safety net, workers’ rights and, of course, a commitment to the fullest possible democracy. It is “social” in that it recognizes that we are social beings who must tend to the health of our communities rather than merely focusing on our private interests, a premise reflected in foundational principles of solidarity and inclusion; it is distinguished from socialism, however, in that it does not advocate for government control of the “means of production” but embraces a private-enterprise or “capitalist” economic model. At the same time, it is distinguished from a neo-liberal model, or laissez faire capitalism, in that it posits an activist role for the state in seeing that pure, unadulterated market forces do not run roughshod over our desire for a society which results in the greatest good for the greatest number. As Taje Erlander, prime minister of Sweden from 1946 – 1969 and the principle architect of Swedish social democracy, put it: “The market is a useful servant, but it is an intolerable master” (and as American philosopher Amory Lovins adds, “a worse religion”).

But, you might ask, isn’t social democracy already the basic governing philosophy of the American Left’s only viable standard bearer, the Democratic Party? My response to this objection would be a very qualified, “yes, sort of, but . . .”

Indeed, it is true that the core block of the Democratic Party, represented first and foremost by President Biden and including most Democratic office holders, is working toward a more social democratic America. The impact of these efforts, however, is diluted by several major factors:

First there is the hodge-podge nature of the American Left. The Democratic Party, the American Left’s sole viable standard-bearer, is beset by an ideological incoherence which I am convinced costs it dearly at the polls. What does the Democratic Party stand for? Old-fashioned “liberal” commitments to organized labor, better wages and the social safety net? More tolerance for illegal immigration? The rights of transgender citizens to use bathrooms and public showers of their choice? Affirmative action for certain racialized minorities? Unrestricted access to abortion? Defunding the police? “Socialism?”

An objective observer could not be faulted for saying that the Democratic Party, judging from the pronouncements of its leading figures, and the legislative and executive policy positions taken at both the federal and state level, stands for all of these things. Admittedly, it is inevitable that one of the major political parties of a populous nation stand for many things; and the fact is the Democratic Party’s constituency is a varied lot who don’t all share the same priorities. Some Democratic voters are motivated chiefly by such hot-button culture war topics as LGBQT+ rights, abortion and a “woke” approach to policies affecting racialized minorities. Another major faction is grounded in a version of the Left going back to FDR, Truman and LBJ, focused on such “kitchen table” issues as decent jobs at good wages, support for the unemployed and affordable health care. Then there are both the self-proclaimed “socialists” à la Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, with their evident distaste for “capitalism,” and those advocating for a relaxation of immigration requirements. For some, ecology and battling global warming are paramount, for others, women’s rights.

I wholly endorse F. Scott Fitzgerald’s famous remark (“the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two [or five, or ten, I might add] opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function”) and believe that the right answer is often not “either-or,” but “both-and.” Yet in its attempt to be all things to as many people as possible, the Democratic Party has failed to give voters looking for a political home any solid core to hold on to. While the Party obviously must take positions on all the disparate issues that governments deal with, from the environment to immigration to national security and foreign affairs, is there some essential philosophy of society and government which voters might see as the main thrust of the Party’s message? The answer to this question is a resounding no. The Party maintains its tenuous plus-or-minus 50 percent nationally by cobbling together numerous splinter factions held together mainly by either their mutual aversion to Republicans (and especially, in the early 2020s, Donald Trump) or dissatisfaction with various aspects of the prevailing order. A mere list of grievances, however, or a shared distaste for certain people is not a philosophy of governing. To take one blinding example of Democrats’ philosophical incoherence, it is absurd that the Party, which chiefly champions a private-enterprise economy, also includes self-avowed “socialists” who favor placing the “means of production” in the hands of the state (see, on this site, “The Muddle Over Socialism: It’s Hurting the Left”). But the Party, in its struggle to maintain its neck and neck position with the Right, is essentially held hostage to each minoritarian faction, regardless of whether the views of such factions represent the opinions of most Democrats, much less most Americans. So, along with advocates for socialism, we have Democrats calling for completely unrestricted access to abortion; open borders (or, what amounts to the same things, no enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws); access of transgender with male genitalia to women’s public showers; and the defunding of police departments. The fact is that only 19% of Americans favor no restrictions on abortion; while large majorities of Americans expect non-American citizens to respect our immigration laws and procedures and wish to see such laws and procedures enforced; are against people with male genitalia having access to spaces where women undress; and in general want more, not less, funding for their local police (which is not to say they don’t also wish to see police behave properly). Democratic Party leaders, unwilling to lose any votes, repeatedly refuse to speak out against those announcing unpopular positions, and when not solemnly paying forward their propaganda slogans, tacitly accept them with euphemistic, wishy-washy and non-committal responses when asked about such contentious matters. Meanwhile the Right, aided and abetted by a click-driven infotainment system, will amplify the most extreme remarks of any Democrat, thereby tying the entire Party to these positions in the minds of those voters—the majority—who don’t make a practice of sorting through the minutiae of political actors’ ideas.

The Democratic Party, and the American Left in general, cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that the large majority of Americans occupy the middle of the ideological spectrum. A March, 2023, Gallup poll exploring Americans’ political affiliations found that 25% identify as Democrats, 25% as Republicans, and 49% as Independents. And the left-most wing of American politics, whether on economic matters (i.e., socialism) or culture-war issues, is not even a majority in the Democratic Party. In the 2020 Democratic primary centrist Joe Biden beat self-avowed socialist Sanders by 70 to 30 percent, and this in spite of the fact that the Sanders campaign spent more than twice as much money as the Biden camp. It is notable that back in 2004 35% of Americans identified as Democrats and only 31% as Independents (as against 25% and 49% today); the two edges of the ideological spectrum, by taking more and more extreme positions, are driving the majority of American voters (49%) into the “neither one” camp.

On the federal level, a party cannot truly govern unless it controls the presidency, the House of Representatives and, due to Senate filibuster procedures, at least 60 votes in the Senate. What’s more, many of the changes needed to bring America into a fuller expression of social democratic ideals would, at this juncture, require a reshaping of the Trump Supreme Court as well as constitutional amendments to achieve such social democratic priorities as equal representation in the Senate and an end to the electoral college, effective gun control and abortion access. Republicans control both houses in 28 state legislatures, and 23 of those states also have Republican governors (Democrats only control both legislatures in 19 states, and only enjoy a legislature-governor “trifecta” in 16 states). The American Left must ask itself how it plans to ever achieve the voting majorities required to exercise real governing authority at both the federal and state levels. One thing should be absolutely clear: what it has been doing is not working.

The solution proposed by The Social Democrat is for the American Left to rally around the core concepts of social democracy: a chiefly private-enterprise economy (as opposed to “socialism”) with forceful government action to ensure decent jobs for workers at living wages; worker representation; a social safety net that includes such programs as affordable health insurance and support for the unemployed and the aged; quality public education through college; and affordable childcare for working parents (for more detail see, on this site, the page titled “What Is Social Democracy?”). A social democrat may favor more or less immigration; may or may not subscribe to every tenet of an Ibrim Kendi version of “anti-racism”; may or may not wish to see police departments defunded; and may or may not believe that minors should be able to undergo gender transition without their parents’ consent. That is, none of these hot-button culture war issues go to the core of the social democracy program. On the other hand, every self-described social democrat is for social security, jobs for all who want them at living wages, union representation, affordable childcare and free, quality public education. It is the view of The Social Democrat that the American Left, through its sole viable representative, the Democrat Party, should take reasonable positions on contentious culture war issues while maintaining a focus on branding the Party as the party of social democracy. As one example of what I mean by reasonable, on abortion the Party should fight for a return to Roe vs Wade. The 1970 ruling, which created what would remain today the most lenient abortion regime in the world were it still in force, provided a workable standard for 50 years, one which a large majority of Americans support. On immigration we should advocate for an orderly process which maintains a steady stream of the immigrants who bring so much to our society while insisting that those seeking entry into this country follow this country’s laws—including its immigration laws—just as other nations expect our citizens to follow their laws. Sure, by allowing some to paint Democrats as favoring no restrictions on abortion, the Party keeps NARL and others with extreme views on the subject happy: but the Party loses that large middle swath of the American electorate it will need if it is to achieve the 60% Senate and statehouse majorities required to accomplish anything. By grandstanding on immigration with sanctuary cities (an extraordinary phenomenon, when local governments openly defy federal law, as did the Southern states of the Confederacy) La Raza is kept in the fold: but again, at what cost at the polls? The American Left, if it wants to see social democracy triumph in America, will have to decide whether it is worth going to the wall for non-parental-consent sex-change therapy for teenagers who make up .02% of the teenage population, or for legal abortion up to the time of term delivery, a position held by only 19% of American voters, at the expense of missing the opportunity to provide real democracy, guaranteed work at living wages, a protected natural environment, dependable and adequate old-age pensions, affordable childcare and much more to all Americans. Current Left discourse on such issues as immigration, abortion and gender, or on race (particularly the idea that all Americans racialized as “White” are collectively responsible for any bad outcome experienced by any American racialized as “Black,” and that a “systemic” racism pervades American society, making it impossible for Americans racialized as “Black” to catch a break) is deeply alienating to a majority of Americans. And they are voting with their feet: away from the Democratic Party. “Progressive” stalwarts seem to believe that if they just keep proclaiming slogans encapsulating extreme positions they will either shout everyone else down or somehow shame them into excepting the “woke” view. But they will not, because not merely Republicans, but most Americans, including many Democrats—or former Democrats—have stopped listening. No amount of “progressive” passion will make those who refuse to accept the latest and most extreme ideological demands—many of which are unsupported by evidence, incoherent, self-contradictory and illogical—go away, and slaughtering your political opponents en masse and throwing them in mass graves á la Srebenica is not an option. If we on the American Left are to have any chance of actually governing, we will have to meet the American public where we find it. The echo chamber gets louder, but we never escape; nor does anyone on the outside hear, or care about, the hollow noises resounding within.

In contrast to their reluctance to accept extreme positions on economic organization (e.g., socialism), or on such culture-war issues as immigration, abortion or critical race theory, most Americans are much more persuadable, if not already on board, with a broad social democratic program based around such vital issues as good jobs at living wages; social security; affordable childcare, healthcare and education; and protection of the environment, including steps to mitigate the possibly existential threat of global warming. The American Left and its representative, the Democratic Party, should clearly and vocally identify with this core set of social democratic programs, while taking the kind of progressive but reasonable positions on contentious culture-war issues that will not alienate the large middle of American politics. Meanwhile the Party must aggressively police its messaging, making sure that those taking extreme positions that spell death at the polls do not become its de facto spokespeople. These folks should be promptly and consistently countered and, when necessary, denounced by Party leadership.[1]

The road to an actual governing majority will not be easy for the Democratic Party: it has allowed itself, over the course of the last decade, to be painted with too many positions that will not be accepted by a majority of voting Americans. Consider: even after everything the American public now knows, in October of 2023, about the devious and illegal dealings of Donald Trump, a recent ABC News-Washington Post poll shows Trump beating Biden by a 10-point margin in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up in November of 2024 (almost all other polls are returning similar results). No objective observer can escape the conclusion that Democrats are losing “bigly”; a change of course is clearly needed. Will Party leaders and operatives have the clear-sightedness and courage to stand for a reasonable discourse aimed at building a 60-Senator coalition and social democracy in America? I would not hazard a guess at this stage. But it is one of the aims of The Social Democrat to encourage this potential development by collating news and articles about social democracy: its successes as well as its challenges and failures; and by advancing the understanding of social democratic theory and practice.

And this brings me to the second strand of my argument as to why The Social Democrat is necessary. As the political Left fosters a discourse which is incoherent, fractured, and often driven by emotional moral signaling and extreme positions that guarantee, at worst, electoral defeat and impotent opposition (and at best tenuous victories, razor-thin majorities and political stalemate) the American press, including those organs friendly to the Left, does little to alleviate these tendencies. Taking a look at the news stories featured on such publications as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, or even an agency like AP News, we find a confusing welter of seemingly random topics covering everything under the sun, often with little sense of whether anything is more relevant than anything else. Broad and constant coverage is given the story of the week (or the day, or the month), whether it be drama around a Trump court appearance (or his latest outrageous remark), the eruption of war somewhere around the globe, or the latest natural disaster or mass shooting, with everything else suddenly fading into the background for the duration. Today’s Guardian, for example (October 26, 2023), opens with seven articles about the armed clash between Israel and Gaza, followed by four stories about the Maine shooter. We then learn that Trump is accused of threatening witnesses in his New York fraud case; that Democrat Dean Phillips will mount a primary challenge to President Biden; and that Taylor Swift fans gave populist Argentinian presidential candidate Javier Milei an “earful.” Moving down the site we see that a Louisiana pastor has been charged with sexual abuse of a teenage girl; that newly elected House speaker Mike Johnson once advocated hard labor for abortion providers; that an Italian woman has won the right in court to evict her two sons; that FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried has testified in his crypto fraud trial “without a jury present”; that 27 are dead after a category 5 storm hits Mexico; and that an unfinished Beatles song has been released with the help of AI. Just a little further along we’re told of a “tense fight” for free press at an “Indigenous” paper in Tennessee; that abortion is on six ballots this year; and that the latest album of Angie McMahon “packs an emotional punch.” Finally we learn “what happens to TV cooking stars after the show” and how one woman’s new romance was “like jumping out of a plane without a parachute.”

I don’t dispute that many of the news stories listed above are relevant, in some way or another, to our understanding of our world (and even, in a few cases, to the social democracy project). And each of the items is no doubt interesting and possibly even useful to some subsection of the Guardian’s readership. The question largely comes down to the purpose that a news site is trying to achieve. And much, if not most, of the news industry today is based on the “infotainment” model. According to this business model, people follow news organs, sites or broadcast channels, not so much so that they can be better informed about matters affecting public policy and thereby better play their roles as political actors in our democracy, but in order to be entertained. Under this model, hyperbole and drama—anything that might get a reader riled up, or gain a click—are emphasized.

The Social Democrat is not opposed to people entertaining themselves. Nor do I believe it in any way wrong for a person to be curious about life: about everything in life, from a “bribery scandal in Hawaii” to the fact that Denmark is “aiming a wrecking ball at ‘non-Western’ neighborhoods”; to Berlusconi’s art collection; why “this 258-year-old mansion” has “been left to fall apart”; or “seven takeaways from Kanye West’s fraught relationship with Adidas” (these from the New York Times). It is largely simply a matter of time. How many things can a person be expected to know about, to care about? There are now 195 nations in the world. Certainly if a ferry sinks off the coast of Finland today, while a minister resigns in the Philippines and elections are being held on Fiji, there are other disasters going on in other nations, other ministers resigning, elections, high crimes and misdemeanors, business deals, rotten corruption to be uncovered, sporting events, singers signing multi-million-dollar contracts and thousands of other things we could be told about. Why this random collection of stories?

We are all suffering from information ADHD.

The Social Democrat does not aim to compete with the infotainment industry but has a very specific purpose. We aren’t opposed, as noted, to being entertaining, and hope that we will not bore you with our summaries, links and articles. But entertainment is not our primary goal, but rather to provide, in one place, a collection of stories and articles pertinent to the program of establishing greater social democracy in the United States. We don’t believe it irrelevant that, for example, Modi’s government is banning the teaching of evolution in Indian schools because it is incompatible with Vedic tradition; we just believe that it is not particularly relevant to the program of establishing social democracy in the United States. We especially follow stories about democracy itself; the social safety net; work, wages and unions; protection of the environment; the management of our common spaces and built environment; housing; transport; health care; education; job training and insertion; macroeconomic decisions that affect inflation, interest rates and buying power; the availability of childcare; policing; and the ever-shifting political landscape: issues that touch average Americans in their everyday lives and for which social democracy offers solutions. We keep an eye on the advanced social democracies of Europe and report on key developments there, as well as initiatives in the 50 states of this country—laboratories of democracy—when they tend toward, or against, greater social democracy. We will, as well, provide summaries and links to stories about major issues or events that cannot help affect us all: the battles surrounding abortion access and immigration, for example, or the outbreak of war.

Besides the scattershot nature of their coverage, the utility of popular left-of-center press outlets as social democracy champions is diluted by the same infatuation with unpopular “progressive” positions that characterize today’s Democratic Party. To take one example, major Left organs afforded glowing coverage to the 2016 campaign of self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, interspersed with articles describing how America’s youth had supposedly turned toward “socialism.” (In-depth surveys indicated that the young people in question had actually turned toward “social democracy,” but that’s another story.) All of this comported perfectly with a too-facile tendency among major Left organs, evident in the kinds of stories covered, the slant given and the columnists featured, to demonize “capitalism.” “Capitalism,” meaning a chiefly private-enterprise economical model, is a fundamental component of social democracy. In general, mainstream Left news organs have been quick to adopt every “progressive” idea that comes down the pike, as long as it appears to challenge the existing order: so-called “anti-racism,” gender fluidity, the “cruelty” of expecting foreign nationals to respect our immigration laws and the purported “wage gap” being among the more salient of the poorly supported concepts these organs blithely pay forward.[2]

The Social Democrat has no problem with a news organ having a political or ideological position: after all, that is exactly what TSD is all about. More precisely, it is about social democracy, which is not necessarily congruent with every position or priority generally classified under the “progressive” banner. As such, the site aims to offer a digest of news relevant to the social democracy project, without too much signal noise from such “progressive” fascinations as identitarianism, changing philosophies about gender and complaints about the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws (this last of which is, to the extent that its chief proponents are Americans racialized as “Latino,” a branch of identitarianism).

And this brings me to the final reason why I believe a site like The Social Democrat is needed, and that is to offer a Left alternative to what I feel is an unconstructive, incoherent and socially unhealthy discourse around “race.” (This topic is treated in greater depth in the article on this site: “Our Tortured Discourse on Race.”) Both social and biological scientists have for more than a generation denounced the very idea of race as a made-up concept with no valid descriptive purpose. They tell us that there is only one human race, one homo sapiens sapiens; we are all members of the same human family. Yet we continue, in common parlance, in politics and in the press, to speak about race as if it has some real substance: against all scientific wisdom, we essentialize it. We classify people into different  groups—“Blacks,” “Whites,” “Latinos,” “Native Americans,” etc.—often based on nothing more than superficial physical characteristics, and then treat all members of each racialized category as if they share some common essence not shared by those racialized into other groups. TSD will not however engage in the scientifically unsupportable (and morally objectionable, see below) practice of referring to one of our fellow citizens as “a Black man,” a “Latino woman” or an “Asian-American” unless the racialized category into which a person is generally placed is essential to the meaning of the story. We will not, in other words, post a headline such as “White Policeman Shoots Black Motorist” unless there is concrete evidence that the reason the policeman shot the motorist was because the policeman, racialized as “White,” perceived the motorist as “Black,” in which case our headline would read, “Policeman Racialized as ‘White’ Shoots Motorist Because Motorist Is Racialized as ‘Black.’” (The more typical headline, “White Policeman Shoots Black Motorist” strongly implies that the motive for the shooting was racism, although not a shred of evidence is typically provided to support this implication.)

Beyond the cold logic of scientific objectivity, TSD considers it disrespectful to reduce any fellow human being, the repository of so many dreams, visions, memories, thoughts, wisdom, passions and pains to a mere set of physical attributes. (Michael Jackson: “I don’t want to spend my life being a color.”) It is in itself unkind, unfair and un-human, and carries several grievous implications besides. First, it carries the implication that all the people racialized into the same group somehow have the same interests, thoughts, feelings and opinions. We talk about the “Black” vote, or “White” society, as if all  people racialized as “Black” share some fundamental “Black” essence and all people racialized as “White” share some different fundamental “White” essence. In fact I, racialized as “White,” have far more in common with my racialized as “Black” friend Johnny—both staunch Democrats, fiction writers and lovers of jazz music—than either of us has with “White” Republican politician Ron DeSantis or “Black” Republican politician Tim Scott. My first cousins, children of my mother’s (racialized as “White”) brother and their second-generation-Filipino mother, surely have a greater share of my affection than virtually anyone on the planet. And few children could make a greater claim to my attention and aid, should he need it, than my racialized as “Black” great nephew, Luke.

The obverse of the misleading implication that all those racialized into the same group share some distinct racial essence (the “essentializing” of the made-up concept of “race”) is the idea that all those sharing one essentialized racial essence are in opposition to all those supposedly sharing a different racialized essence: “White” against “Black,” “Black” against “Asian,” “Latino” against “White,” and etc. This sense of opposition has been heightened, one would almost have to conclude deliberately, by the use of the wildly imprecise terms “Black” and “White” to distinguish people with African ancestry from those appearing to be of 100 percent European ancestry. In point of fact, I have never seen a person who was actually either white or black: we are all of us varying shades of brown (from pinkish tan to a richer, darker shade). The latest trend, “people of color,” is equally suspect: from the point of view of objective description, again, we all have a color (none of us are actually white); and in attempting to pit all those not of apparent 100 percent European ancestry against those of apparent 100 percent European ancestry, this propaganda ignores racialized-as-“Asian” students suing Harvard over preferential admissions for those racialized as “Black”; Los Angeles City Council members racialized as “Latino” caught making racist remarks about the racialized-as-“Black” child of another member; multiple attacks upon Americans racialized as “Asian” by those racialized as “Black” during the pandemic; or the fact that 32 percent of people racialized as “Latino,” 34 percent of those racialized as “Asian” and 12 percent of those racialized as “Black” voted for Trump in 2020. There is no conceptually meaningful “people of color”: The Social Democrat does not traffic in this misleading and divisive propaganda phrase.

The Social Democrat understands that, unfortunately, those who historically held power and authority in the United States believed very strongly in the dubious concept of race and utilized it to carry out a systematic brutalization of those of African ancestry and, to a lesser but significant extent, the unfair treatment of all others not perceived to be of 100 percent European and Christian origin. Such discrimination was statutorily outlawed in the United States by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as well as by evolving judicial treatment of the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but we must assume that those Americans racialized as “Black” who spent any part of their lives in pre-1968 America were severely handicapped by the systematic oppression of American apartheid. For this reason, The Social Democrat supports a reasonable plan of reparations for all Americans racialized as “Black” who were alive prior to 1968.[3]

The Social Democrat does not, however, accept the premise, widely supported on the American Left, that the United States of 2023 remains a systemically racist society where all those not racialized as “White” cannot catch a break. TSD is aware of the disparities on several measures of success between Americans racialized as “White” and those racialized as “Black” and to a lesser extent “Latino.” TSD does not believe, however, that the reason for these disparities chiefly lies in a society that is, in 2023, systemically rigged against all those not racialized as “White” (and particularly against those racialized as “Black”), but can be found in a host of other factors. TSD agrees that a good part of the reason for many disparities lies in the actual systemic racism that existed prior to the 1970s: a reasonable reparations plan, such as that outlined in the aforementioned article, will go a long way toward eradicating them. Other problems that are disproportionately faced by Americans racialized as “Black” or “Latino” can best be addressed, The Social Democrat believes, by the implementation of a fuller social democracy providing equal opportunity to all Americans, no matter the racialized category into which they’ve been placed, who are struggling. Consider: there are many millions more Americans racialized as “White” living in poverty than those racialized as black (about 17 million as against about 7 million). Granted, the 17 million Americans racialized as “White” (ARWs) living in poverty constitute 8.6% of all ARWs, while the 7 million poor Americans racialized as “Black” make up 17% of that racialized cohort: nearly twice as great a proportion of the larger group. But when we talk about poverty in America as if it’s a racial problem, which seems to be the current way of thinking of most of the American Left, we err on several counts. First, we treat 17 million Americans racialized as “White” as if they are of no importance, as if their poverty is of no account nor of any concern to us (and the Democratic Party can’t figure out why it has lost the “White working class” vote). Second, we miss the opportunity to build a coalition regardless of racialized categories that will support the kind of social democratic measures needed to ensure that all Americans willing to make an effort have access either to a job at a living wage or training programs also paid at a living wage (see my article, on this site: “Guaranteed Work or Training at Living Wage”).

To take the example of policing, the BLM movement and its many supporters have missed an opportunity to mount a non-race-based attack on widespread police misconduct against all Americans. Many more Americans racialized as “White” are killed by police every year than ARBs; and anyone who doubts that ARWs can be treated brutally by police should go to YouTube and watch, if they have the stomach for it, body camera footage of the heartless slaying of ARW (American racialized as “White”) Daniel Shaver by Las Vegas police in 2017.

The prevailing race discourse among the American Left, following the lead of actors such as Ibrim Kendi, focuses on proportionality between racialized groups almost to the extent of all else, or what is nowadays referred to as “equity.” But if our only goal is to achieve proportionality, we could just as easily achieve equal outcomes on income between Americans racialized as “White” and Americans racialized as “Black” by making more ARWs poorer as well as by making more ARBs richer. We could likewise equalize prison populations by just putting more ARWs in prison until the number of ARWs in prison was racially proportional to the number of incarcerated ARBs. And we could quell the outrage over the disproportionate number of ARBs being fatally shot by police by decreeing that the police shoot more ARWs. The goal should be, in other words, to put in place whatever measures might help to lift up everyone who needs lifting, and TSD believes that in focusing on racial disparities the American Left is not only misidentifying the problem but also instigating a raft of unintended and counterproductive consequences.

One great harm almost certainly done by the prevailing Left discourse on race is the discouraging impact it must have on non-ARW children. To constantly drum into these young and impressionable minds that the society in which they live is set against them succeeding; that the majority of its population (ARWs) don’t care about them and would like to see them fail in life; that all is futile because no matter what you do you’ll never be accepted in the inner sanctum and will probably be randomly shot by the police because of the color of your skin, must be creating an entire generation of young ARBs who live in despair and hopelessness, and in many cases resentment and rage. What is especially tragic is that the “systemic” racism discourse is founded largely on false logic (see, on this site, “Our Tortured Discourse on Race”).

By focusing on race, the current American Left is misdirecting the Left’s energies: the dialogue should be about quality education for all children, with effective and well-funded accompaniment where needed in the form of after-school programs and a rigorous, career-oriented secondary education for those not bound for college; about guaranteed jobs or re-skilling at living wages; affordable health insurance, childcare and housing; safe and livable communities; a protected natural environment; and pensions and eldercare to allow the old to live in dignity. In pitting working Americans against one another, in painting a zero-sum game of tribal success, today’s Left is making impossible the kind of coalition that could deliver the majorities needed to bring real change to America. It is hard not to see in the efforts of the so-called “anti-racist” group to control our public dialogue a naked power play by people speaking for—actually, claiming to speak for, because we don’t hold elections for “race” spokespeople—only 13 percent of the population. And I can’t help suspect that the highly paid, privileged-by-birth people who control major “Left” press organs or hold prestigious university postings, giving them access not only to publishers and press but also the minds of succeeding generations, prefer a toxic, virtue-signaling, stalemated discussion about “race” to a vigorous process to create a social democratic America that would erode their advantages of wealth and influence. After all, establishing real social democracy in America will require more progressive taxes on income as well as wealth and a virtual end to the use of inheritance to maintain inter-generational dynasties of privilege.[4] The prevailing Left discourse, adopted in large part by the Democratic Party, has created a toxic and dysfunctional society which can serve only the interests of tycoons who have learned to feed off the disorder. The Old Left was in the habit of decrying, and rightly, the tactics of the rich to divide and conquer the working classes: today, the Democratic Party is doing it for them.

Here at the Social Democrat our aim is to provide a space where a different vision of the American Left can take shape: one based upon building a fulsome social democracy for all citizens, just and humane, free of racialized categories and cant of any stripe, and founded on the ideals of solidarity and radical inclusion. I hope you will join us.