Recent campaigns were notable for the widespread use of alternate facts and stereotypes. This is the fuel that stirred up intense divisions between political parties and within families. Stereotyping also helped maintain the Jim Crow system, or discrimination against any minority or immigrant community. As the United States looks to fulfill its responsibilities to those who helped us in Afghanistan, we can expect new stereotypes to emerge.
One of the oldest stereotypes still in use is the cry, “socialism,” a great pejorative and conversation stopper. Technically, socialism in economics is the government ownership of an industry. After WWII, Britain nationalized the coal industry, and a few countries in South America nationalized some extractive industries. Which industries do Republicans think Democrats want to nationalize at risk to our democratic, free way of life? To be honest, I think the American steel industry is safe.
What Republicans really mischaracterize as socialism are programs designed for the common good or, as stated in the preamble to the Constitution, “to promote the general welfare.” Broad social programs would include education, infrastructure, law enforcement, and Ben Franklin’s Post Office. Social Security has been a prime conservative target since the 1930s. Often in public opinion, Social Security is confused with public welfare and is labeled as some kind of an “entitlement program” sometimes by the very people who are receiving the benefits. Like any insurance policy, beneficiaries pay into Social Security as they progress through their earning years. Your car, life, and home insurance work the same way. Everyone pays in and, when needed, beneficiaries receive an appropriate payout, after the insurance company takes its profits and executive salaries.
In recent years, conservatives have tried to update the “socialism” stereotype by shifting the discussion to “freedom,” as though the two ideas are in opposition. They argue that health insurance purchased from a private company will somehow set you free, while Medicare represents socialistic imprisonment. It is hard to argue that an impersonal for-profit provider, who can reduce your benefits because of its definition of “pre-existing conditions,” is providing freedom. You get what you pay for, and freedom isn’t on the private health insurer’s menu.
The more progressive point of view supports and enjoys freedom in the form of good schools, safe roads, strong infrastructure, and health care for all. These are common goods that can launch a career, get you to work, and enhance your well-being. Who among us does not deserve these benefits? We also support a strong (not “defunded”) police force, whose tool kit can be improved by adding a mental health professional to the crisis response team, as is being implemented now in the town of Culpeper.
Of course, a surefire way to defund the police, the schools, the fire department, or public health is to have the legislature cut their budgets. This is the tactic of Culpeper’s House of Delegates representatives, who always vote against the budget and take no responsibility for the consequences. They hide behind stereotypes and ideology so that they don’t have to make the hard decisions that are needed to build and maintain a strong community. If Culpeper is short of deputies or has schools with leaky roofs and ventilation, roads and bridges in dangerous disrepair, and contaminated water and food supplies, the responsibility falls on those who vote against the budget. That’s why we are told elections have consequences.
Please vote this November. Local elections are extremely important for the prosperity of our community. Early voting, by mail or in person at the Voter Registrar’s Office, starts Friday, September 17.
David Reuther
Culpeper
David Reuther, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer, is a past chair of the Culpeper Democratic Committee. These are his personal observations. This letter was previously published in the latest edition of the Culpeper Star-Exponent newspaper and is reprinted here with the author’s permission.
