The Capitalism v Socialism Myth in the U.S.

Capitalism is usually thought of as a combination of private ownership of the resources of production with free market principles.  Socialism is thought of as government ownership of the resources of production and government direction of the economy.

Republicans have criticized any effort by the Federal government to interfere with the freedoms of the private entrepreneur, be it a doctor or a businessman, as socialism.  Thus they were against Medicare, calling it "socialized medicine,"  They are routinely against any regulation of business regardless whether its intent is to protect the public.  They are against all social welfare programs for the poor as subsidizing people who should take care of themselves (Social Security is excepted from this argument because retirees have earned their payments).

And yet, Republicans have no problem with the billions of dollars that are spent by the Federal government each year to subsidize business in various ways, including tax loopholes that enable some of the most successful major corporations to pay no taxes each year despite making huge profits.

In fact, we do not have a capitalist economy.  We have a hybrid system with the government subsidizing big business—as well as the poor, the elderly. and people in need.  It also attempts through various economic measures to control the direction of the economy.

The government's expenditures to subsidize industry as well as the poor have the same justification—to insure a prosperous economy.  If industry does not prosper, the economy suffers and unemployment rises.  If the poor and others in need do not have sufficient funds to maintain a reasonable life style, they not only suffer personally, but they cannot participate in and thereby support the economy.

Government's role, in the famous words of the Declaration of Independence, is "to secure" citizen's "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  In our society, which is a money economy, one cannot have the freedom to pursue happiness or life without a modicum of financial resources.  Everything the government does is in the larger sense done for this purpose.  And so it is absolutely justified.

However, what is not justified is the money the government spends, or forgoes collecting through taxes, because it seeks to enrich the moneyed classes.  This does nothing but create excess wealth and increase inequality; it in no way furthers inalienable rights.  The very rich, the top 1% ($800,000+ income, $35.5 million household wealth), have so much excess  wealth that they have no use for it other than conspicuous consumption and creating more wealth.  Philanthropy consumes only a small portion of this wealth.

Since it is against the government's role in a democracy to enrich the wealthy with no benefit to the rest of the population —Reagan's "tickle down" economic theory has been proven to be baseless time and time again—all such largesse by government, whether in the form of tax cuts or tax loopholes, should be eliminated.

As a point of reference, in the years prior to 1944 the top tax rate ranged from 46-88%. From 1944-1963, the tax rate was above 90%.  For the rest of the 60s and 70s it was more than 70%.  From 1987 to the present, the top rate has mostly been in the upper 30s%.

If one looks at the country's GDP during the post-WWII years, the GDP was on average somewhat higher (3.6%) in the years prior to the Reagan tax cuts in 1987 than in the years since (3.2%).  Since the high tax rates for the very rich did not have a negative impact on the economy—on the contrary, it  seems to have been somewhat beneficial—there is no economic justification for this largesse.  It's sole purpose is to further enrich the rich.  

This largesse must be stopped so that the government has more money to balance the budget and provide resources where they are most needed to support its role to secure all citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Trump Violates Freedom of Religion

A recent article in the New York Times detailed how prevalent Christian prayer and Christian conservative perspective has become in the daily operations of the White House.  

He has elevated the Faith Office to high visibility.  And that office has promised, "an ambitious agenda, including ending what it sees as Christian persecution in America and to end the prevailing belief that church and state should be separated."  While it says it's mission is to support all religions, clearly it's focus is on Christian dominance.

In furthering its cause, the office and the Evangelical pastors who frequent the White House have used misleading statements to ground their message in broadly accepted beliefs/concepts.  For example, one pastor talked about their commitment to affirming "our Judeo-Christian value system."  Please, leave Jews out of this; the MAGA Christian agenda has nothing, or at best little, to do with Jewish values.

In another example, a book prominently displayed in the Faith Office is titled, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America: Christian Self Government.  Yet, although the Founding Fathers were all Christian and many had a strong contemporary belief in God, there is absolutely no mention of God in the Constitution.   

Why?  The First Amendment specifically provides that Congress shall not establish a state religion.  The Founders believed strongly in the importance of the separation of church and state. This was based on their knowledge of the wars and suffering that religious absolutism had caused in Europe.  To speak of God in the Constitution would have given the appearance of violating that separation.  

In support of this separation and the appreciation of diversity, Article VII provides that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for public office.  It is thus absolutely clear that from a governance perspective, rather than a personal one, religion was not to be part of the process.

President Trump, in bringing Christian practice so visibly into the daily workings of the White House has crossed the line between observing his personal faith (of which he seems to have had none) and establishing Christianity as the state religion.  This is yet one more example of his deceptive perversion of American values. 

Pluralism or DEI?

Even before Trump's actions against DEI, there were many in the academic community and elsewhere that felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.  

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who currently and historically have suffered from discrimination, became a sign of exclusion of all others because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention on others.  Those left out were assumed to not need any help, but that was mistaken.  And they were and are angry.

Another problem with DEI is that it maintained if not amplified an attitude of victimization and anger at the broader society.  It supported an us v them perspective.  There was no effort in DEI to bring minority and majority groups together to help change the current dynamic.  The assumption was that if you were going to protect your rights, you had to fight for them.  And so it unintentionally further polarized an already polarized society.

Because of these problems, some in academia and state government have adopted the concept of pluralism to replace DEI.  The concept of pluralism, broadly stated, is that everyone is recognized as being part of the whole, that all voices are allowed to speak and be heard, and that opposing groups learn to speak to each other and hopefully find a way of bridging historical animosities.

This is a good thing; polarization is very harmful for all concerned.  But from what I've read, it appears that the baby has been thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.

Discriminated-against groups need their own space, their own support group, because the rest of society is so lacking in understanding their history and nature and of the fact and impact of the discrimination that they not only have suffered from historically, but are still suffering from today, despite all the laws the have been passed.  

If the dominant culture truly comes to accept pluralism, then there might be less need for such identity-groups, but I think there would still be a legitimate need.  I have never understood, for example, why the gay ghetto, which was such a wonderful, nourishing experience, was felt by gays to no longer be necessary once society became more accepting of gays.  We have truly lost something, which was not necessary.  We may be accepted, but we have our own culture, which is rich, and that culture can only thrive when you're living together.

Further, it should not be seen as destructive of or inconsistent with pluralism for groups to speak out against current discrimination, racism, or misogyny in our country.   Pluralism requires the respect of everyone for everyone else.  It's the equivalent of the classic lawyer's statement that, "Reasonable men may differ."  It's about coexisting with civility regardless of differences.  

If that is not the current status—and that is certainly not the status now with racism, discrimination, and misogyny being widespread—then not only should it be ok to call out such violations of the spirit of pluralism, but this must be done.   Otherwise, pluralism will be a delusion.

In the 90s, multiculturalism was given a bad name, just as DEI has now,  And for much the same reason.  For emphasizing our differences, rather than our commonality.   Through pluralism, we must find a way of both emphasizing our commonality—the fact that we are all Americans and human beings—and supporting the vitality of the subcultures within our midst.

 

Living in Trumpland

I live in semi-rural Maine, in what's called Mid-Coast, not the vast interior hinterlands.  This is Trump country.  Before the election, Trump banners, signs, constructions, icons, and of course the American flag, were everywhere.

What has surprised and disheartened me is that after 3 months in office, wreaking havoc on the country, doing nothing that helps the economic situation of the Trump voter and actually increasing his difficulty, fulfilling none of his promises other than those that relate to the deportation of illegal immigrants and fighting wokeness, the banners and signs, etc. are all still there.

That is a pretty clear indication that Trump's actions in office have done nothing to lessen his core supporters' enthusiasm towards him. 

Supposedly many who voted for him—certainly the formerly Democratic middle-class voters and the more traditionally conservative Republican voters who held their noses when they voted—were primarily moved  by economics; they thought their situation would improve more under Trump than Harris.  I would imagine that a poll of those voters would find that many if not most have seen that they have been deceived and that Trump is not going to deliver for them.

But as to his core base, the truly committed Trump supporter—those are the ones who display the symbols of Trump allegiance—his actions seem to increase their support; they love it.   They love the chaos, the way he is dismantling the Federal government.  They love the way he is going after his enemies, be it law firms or individuals.  They love his defiance of the courts.  They love the deportations.  And they love his leading the culture wars against DEI.  Their economic status seems to be irrelevant to them.

How did so many Americans become besotted with Trump?  For one thing, they must have had plenty of anti-establishment feelings that Trump tapped into.  People who were left behind by the American dream.

But beyond that there is the question of how they could believe his preposterous claims, his huge lies.  I read recently that data shows that 30% of adult Americans can only read at a 10-year-old level.  At that level, one has a limited capacity to critically think or to analyze.  I would hazard to guess that a large percentage of Trump's base falls into that category and that that helps explain why they accepted anything he said with such enthusiasm, without any questioning.

I fear that absolutely nothing will dissuade his base that Trump is king, messiah, their hero all rolled into one.  Our country's only hope is that the more mainstream Republicans who voted for him as well as the Black and Latino Democrats who voted for him have already or will soon see the light that he has deceived them and is not doing anything to improve their economic position.

The Failure of Contemporary Arts Culture, including Broadway

Artistic culture has a role to play in society, historically.  Whether it was art, plays (e.g. Shakespeare), or music, the function of art was to lift the souls or lighten the hearts not just of the well-to-do but also the common man.  And so, until recent times, there were always a decent number of affordable tickets for the common man for such events/venues.

But no more.  For example, if we look at Broadway—a popular culture destination—in 1970, the top price for tickets was $15, with starting prices around $6, including standing room tickets.  Now that sounds unbelievably cheap, but when you account for inflation since 1970, the current top price would be $122; the $6 ticket would be $49. 

What are current ticket prices?  Currently, the top shows—the ones in greatest demand—have top ticket prices of over $900!  Those shows not in significant demand have a top ticket price of around $200, with many shows somewhere in the middle.  The difference is that starting in the 2000s, Broadway adopted the dynamic pricing strategy of airlines and hotels, with prices going up with demand.  But even the $200 top ticket is considerably more than the $122 inflation adjusted figure.

The cheapest ticket is inline with inflation, however for top shows that price is only available by lottery or a student rush.  More importantly, while the price is inline with inflation, the average person's income has not risen inline with inflation.  For the American middle class worker, their wages have mostly stagnated since 1970, so $48 is a much greater share of their income today than $6 would have been in 1970.  And so they cannot even afford the cheapest tickets.

While the examples I am using are from Broadway, the same basic point can be made about orchestras, the opera, and even museums.  Most museums today, not just in places like New York City, charge $20-25 for entrance, and for many that is a flat fee, rather than a suggested fee with a "pay-what-you-will" policy.  So a family of 4 would pay $80-100 for entrance.  That's a lot of money for a middle-class working family.

And so as a result of this escalation in pricing, the average person, the common man, has been priced out of cultural events and venues.  For example, the average income of Broadway theater goers currently is $276,000, while the average household income in New York City is $122,000.  Tourists make up the bulk of Broadway ticket buyers (65%).

If the average person no longer can afford to attend arts cultural events or venues, are cultural organizations fulfilling their mission?  The answer should be, "no."  However, if you look at their mission statements, they typically say nothing about accessibility regardless of income level.  The purpose of art has morphed in our society to something to be enjoyed by people of means.

Arts organizations will sometimes attempt to serve the broader public by taking performances to neighborhood streets during the summer.  But while this certainly has some value, it barely scratches the surface of need out there and does not open the hallowed halls of theaters and orchestras to the common man to experience art together with the rest of society.

The problem with arts cultural organizations today is similar to that of business corporations in that they have lost sight of their function in society.  Their function is not just to produce great product, but to benefit the common good.  For a cultural organization, it benefits the good by being accessible to a large section of the public.

Any organization that is created by government registration (and by being incorporated, it is) should through its mission statement and goals serve the public goals for which the government gave them permission to exist as a corporation or nonprofit,  That is not currently the law, but it should be. Even without it being compelled legally, any serious cultural arts organization should have this commitment as part of its mission.

 

Where Are the Democrats?

Trump is all over the news.  He has been aggressive, overwhelming.

The Democrats have mostly been missing.  It’s as though since they have no power in Congress to stop Trump and the Republicans, they don’t know what to do.  They held their silly paddles up during Trump’s State of the Union speech, and they have sputtered individually about various Trump actions.  The Party has not organized anything,

This is not the way to win back the hearts and minds of disaffected middle-class Democrats who voted for Trump, nor the many Republicans who voted for Trump, holding their noses, because of their concern with the economy,  

Democrats usually speak to their base.  But what the Party needs to do now is speak to those who voted for Trump in the last election; it needs to establish a line of communication with them. And it needs to find a way of speaking to Trump voters effectively. .

In communicating, the Party needs to establish a presence on social media as well as the internet and cable TV.  Too long has the Party allowed the Republicans to dominate the information war by having only a weak presence in the new media.

Whenever Trump or one of his minions does something that harms the Trump voter, that breaks a promise he made to them, the Party must make sure that Trump voters know what Trump is doing and its impact on them—clearly and effectively.

When he does something that violates the Constitution, especially its checks and balances, the Party must—after explaining the importance of the checks and balances, America is not a monarchy—counter Trump’s view that the courts or Congress have no power over his “legal” actions.

Besides doing this using a rapid response style, daily if necessary, the Party should have a once-a-week news conference—again using social media, etc.—to review Trump’s actions of the week and how those actions harmed the interests of Trump voters.

And it is important that these communications be directed clearly to Trump voters.  Democrats must show them that it is the Democratic Party that cares for them, not the Republicans. Republicans have used and abused them, especially on the economy.  

To do this successfully, the Party must be more than the anti-Trump. They must present a positive vision for the country and the policies that flow from it that resonate with the hearts and mind of the American people.  See my post, "What Does the Democratic Party Stand For."

The Republican Party has always been the party of big business, not the worker.  And Trump has been true to form.  Trump's actions since the inauguration have been to further the interests of corporate America, not the average American.

These communications will not be lost on the Democratic base.  It will hear these broadcasts and be energized by what the Party is doing and saying.

The Party must start laying the base now for reclaiming Congress in the 2026 midterm elections.

 

Trump’s Destruction of Government

 It’s clear now that Trump’s goal is nothing less than the destruction of the Federal government, both regarding most of its functions and the balance of power set by the Constitution.

Functions:  Trump’s actions show that he thinks the Federal government has only two functions:  protect the country and support business … oh, and requiring adherence to culture war issues at the state and local level, including education..  All other agencies—not just those areas that advance liberal causes— have been gutted, both regarding staff levels and programs.  It’s not just the EPA and DEI functions or even USAID.  It’s almost everything with the exception of Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security, and related agencies. Even Social Security.

This is more drastic than anything he proposed during the election campaign.  The agencies won’t have the staff or funding needed for the agencies to fulfill their mission, effectively eliminating them.  This is also true for what he terms “anti-business” functions of otherwise protected agencies, such as combating fraud and corruption, auditing business tax returns, and regulating business for the public good, which Trump views as  “liberal” agendas.

The result of these cuts to staff and programming is that the welfare of the people will be significantly impacted—negatively. They will either not get the services they need and previously got or corporations will be able to do what they want even if it is harmful to the interests of the public.

This is far different from the usual and accepted practice of a change in administration altering the nuance of government.  That is, a Republican administration was always more pro-business than a Democratic one.  But the Republican administrations, while replacing political appointees with people supporting Republican policy positions, rarely dismantled programs and never an agency.  So one could switch administrations without major disruption or harm to the government and the people.

If Trump is allowed to carry out his plans—and we can look only to the courts to stop him—even if the next administration is Democratic, it will be extremely difficult to restore the government to  anything close to its former state.  It will take many years and a huge expenditure of funds to hire necessary staff and restore the services that people have come to expect and depend on from the government.

There is little argument that the Federal government could use some cutting back, both in staff and programs.  But instead of doing this carefully based on what works and what doesn’t, Trump and Musk are doing this on an ideological basis and using a chainsaw approach.  At this point, it is hard to say whether the country will be able to recover from Trump’s actions and, if so, how long that might take.

Balance of Power:  While it was always clear that Trump wanted to increase the power of the presidency, the extent of his power quest is now clear.  He sees himself as a King, with both Congress and the courts being subservient to him.  And he will brook no disagreement.

While he has said that he will abide by the decision of the courts, he means only the Supreme Court—and that, not because of the Constitutional position of the Supreme Court but because he thinks that with a conservative super-majority, several appointed by him, they will rule in his favor.  But that is open to question.  We shall soon see.  The Supreme Court refused Trump’s request to freeze USAID funds and sent the case back to the District Court for further findings.  That court has now ordered Trump to present a schedule for payment.  

In the meantime, he has not followed a number of lower court orders, which will in all likelihood also end up at the Supreme Court, the most flagrant of which involves the deportations of Venezuelans in flagrant violation of the District court’s order not to deport them.  After Trump called the District Court judge a “radical left lunatic,” and he and his allies called for his impeachment, Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare public statement that impeachment is not appropriate when one disagrees with a decision.  (See my post, “The Constitutional Crisis to Come.”)

If the courts are not successful in stopping Trump, even if the’26 midterms result in a Democratic controlled House and Senate, they will not be able to undo the damage that Trump has done and will continue to do because Trump will veto their efforts, and they are unlikely to have the votes necessary (⅔ of the House) to override a Presidential veto.  That work will only start with a new Democratic administration, hopefully, in 2028.

All the Democratic Party can do now is call Trump out on anything he does that either hurts the average person, goes against his campaign promises, or upsets the Constitution’s balance of power system.  And this the Party has not systematically done.  But they must speak out,,and if necessary on a daily basis, in order to keep the impact of Trump’s actions in front of the public, in front of the voters, laying the groundwork for regaining control of Congress in 2026.