David Harsanyi at the Federalist, explores the problem of Democrat/Socialists promoting an economic model with a history they choose to ignore.
In practice, of course, there’s not any difference between a Democratic Socialist and a Progressive Democrat — Hillary’s preferred designation these days — other than, perhaps, the speed at which one wants to work. (Ask her to explain the difference.) Sanders likes to stress the distinction between a Democratic Socialist and your commonplace authoritarian. But state coercion against individuals, even with the blessing of a majority, is still state coercion. Controlling the means of production, even if you attempt to achieve your goal with a combination of punitive taxation, fees, regulatory schemes, cronyism, and executive action, is still controlling the means of production. Sooner or later one kind of authoritarianism leads to another.
I’m not arguing that we’re there yet. We’re certainly not. But I’m asking: where does the Democratic Party end up on this ideological trajectory? At some point people are going to expect your policies to match your rhetoric.
Down the rabbit hole, Alice. That’s where we go.
