John Hickenlooper's Socialism Problem (Is Ours Too)

With the next round of presidential debates among the democratic contenders just around the corner, one specter from the first set continues to haunt me.

In the debate former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper mentioned several times that he was a scientist. This of course suggests that he bases his opinions and decisions on evidence and reasoning.

On the other hand, another statement that he made more than once was that his opponents are advancing socialism. But if he has looked at the evidence — as a good scientist would — he would certainly have learned that the democratic socialist countries of the world are the least corrupt and the most successful.

Why might the governor choose to emphasize socialism? Presumably the decision was made after discussion with political consultants who thought it would help him stand out among his political rivals.

It could also show him as a realist who would stand up to the dangers that socialism poses. But what dangers? And to whom do they pose a threat?

While many people might not consider free higher education or universal health care as dangerous per se, the top 1% presumably does. Without really explaining why Hickenlooper implies that these are both things that other countries can afford but we can't. But both are addressed more effectively and less expensively in countries that are governed according to democratic socialistic approaches.

Sadly, as the governor presumably suspects, the word "socialism" probably still has some of the clout that it historically has enjoyed, basically as a stimulus or trigger that automatically entails bad things: Stalinism, secret police, shoddy merchandise, taxes.

But why shouldn't the governor use the word socialist if it gets the results he is seeking? John Hickenlooper is not the worst offender, only the latest. And he's not likely to win the nomination anyway.

Even if John Hickenlooper isn't using the term cynically, there are plenty of people who will: Trump and the Republicans and corporate media and their mouth-pieces are now dusting off the old red-scare playbooks. But mainstream media is no stranger to the cognitive shortcuts that often substitute for evidence and reason. In fact, many pundits and reporters faced with deadlines and the internalized rules of the owners, may believe themselves to be the truthtellers yet they are often the worst offenders.

As somebody who studies civic intelligence (and civic ignorance) I still wince when professionals take advantage of the public's susceptibility to weaponized rhetoric. While the immediate intent is preventing progress on social or environmental issues such as climate change or inequality, the broader side-effect is degradation of our country's civic intelligence. Using manipulative language, either intentionally or not, goes a long way to damage the civic intelligence that has recently been revealing its fragile status.

Although "socialism" has gotten less of a clobbering in the media lately it is likely to be called into duty in this election cycle. This is especially true if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren get the nomination. Unfortunately this smokescreen conveniently ignores the evidence that capitalism, especially in its less regulated and more crony-centric forms whether it is housed in Brazil, Russia, or the United States, is magnitudes more problematic than the social democracies of Sweden and the like.

Younger people seem to know instinctively when people are trying to manipulate them. They seem to know that addressing the real problems will only happen when we face reality intelligently and cut through manipulative punditry.

So, yes, we, like Governor Hickenlooper, have a problem with "socialism." The problem is that we're not really talking about the ways that democratic socialism could be helping us get out of the deep problems that are currently being ignored.