In the not too distant future, our nation could be celebrating one of Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or Ben Carson Marco Rubio or Mark Kasich or Ted Cruz on President’s Day. But thanks to a few of these candidates, we could be looking at a very different nation.
As some of the candidates continue to push their campaigns deeper into the hearts of their respective bases, lines are being rewritten, and with it, what it means to be American. What it means to be conservative or progressive. And one particular campaign is aiming to redefine another word for our nation: what it means to be socialist.
Bernie Sanders, the self-avowed Democratic Socialist, is proudly touting European countries as his model for America, which includes free college and universal healthcare. It’s not a surprise that many are cringing at the word “socialism,” as America is a capitalist country and, depending on your perspective, far more successful and powerful than the European countries Senator Sanders wants us to become. But America is not entirely not socialist as it is.
We have taxes, and a progressive tax rate at that, to pay for public utilities, schools, parks, arts, entitlements, etc., and while the progressive system may be in the crosshairs of many Republicans, most of the programs that are funded by taxpayer dollars are not. Not only programs that we all get to appreciate, like the utilities, roads, parks and arts, but also the programs that not all of us benefit from directly, like public schools and entitlements. It’s not because of the goodness of everyone’s hearts, despite Governor Kasich’s best efforts, but because we do all need them. If the less fortunate among us are not educated or fed or cared for and are left to suffer, then our country will look more like European countries, but from centuries ago, with lords hiding behind castle walls and battlements. On a completely pragmatic level, it is in the best interest of everyone to keep any of us from falling to into a desperation which would push one to do something their better nature would otherwise prevent them from doing.
We are all a part of this and we need to work together to make sure it thrives. That is what socialism should mean in America. Not 1% of this and a tenth of 1% of that is against 40% of this. There’s nothing social about that. That’s divisive. It shouldn’t matter how much more one has than the other, as long as we all have enough. It behooves us all to have a functioning society, and we need to be reminded of that instead of turned on each other to the point where we want others among us to specifically have less.
On the other side, Donald Trump campaigns on deporting millions of Mexicans, banning Muslims and advertises support from white supremacist groups. That has led some to suggest he’s running a nationalistic campaign. And when Trump leads in most Republican polls with that brand of campaigning, it nudges other candidates to follow his rhetoric, and that gives the Republican party more than an air of nationalism. But does that word have to be a negative in America?
In other countries, where being a nationalist means you look a certain way, you sound a certain way, it’s a defined negative. But in America, more than any other country, you are what you make of yourself, and you’re an American if you make it so. An American doesn’t look like anything on the outside (apologies to Native Americans) and that is one thing that makes the melting pot that is America so great, and that’s what nationalism should mean here. Love of this country, in all its forms, should be what brings us together, not divides us. Again, we’re all in this together so we can’t be working against each other. Again, that’s not how a society thrives.
So before we go forwards to this redefined future America of President Sanders or President Trump, let’s look back at a president who helped define the country we live in today. President Lincoln gave the famous “A house divided” speech in 1858, years before he became President and the Civil War. The speech was a call to act against slavery because, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” But as President, to push back the tide of war, he was willing to compromise… another taboo word in the partisan climate of today.
President Lincoln is known for leading the Union in the Civil War and, effectively, ending slavery in America. But he tried very hard to make sure arms were not raised against fellow Americans. To do that, he was willing to allow slavery to continue in the south, so long as it didn’t spread. He was willing to enforce fugitive slave laws and he was willing to let the Confederates claim their small victories, just so he wouldn’t have to trigger the burgeoning war. He was willing to compromise the day to win the future. This wasn’t because he was tolerant of slavery; he didn’t compromise on principle. The end of slavery was his goal, but more importantly, he didn’t want Civil War. Why? Because we’re all in this together. Lincoln didn’t want brother killing brother, but more importantly, he knew if abolition was forced on the South instead of willingly given, it would not truly take hold and a division would last and it would not be ideal for America or the slaves. And over a century and a half later, we’re still grappling with that division.
Americans, from every corner of the country, share this land, and as long as we do, we need to work together build a functioning society that works for everyone. One where we aren’t continuously undermining each other to the point where victory looks like making sure the other side loses, even if nothing positive happens.
Socialism. Nationalism. These words only mean what we make them mean. Let’s stop focusing on labels and start making what we do and who we are mean something. And for everyone’s sake, let’s make sure it means something positive.
