The Full McCarthy
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) decides to imitate one of modern conservatism’s greatest heroes:
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) puts the number of socialists in the House at 17.
“Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists,” Bachus told local government leaders on Thursday, according to the Birmingham News.
Bachus gave the specific number of House socialists when pressed later by a reporter.
To take this more seriously than it deserves, the number of members of the House who would be inclined to support the sort of agenda advocated by what would, in Europe, be called a “labor” or “socialist” or “social democratic” political party is surely more than 17. That would be an agenda of offering a more expansive version of the sort of public sector we already have in the United States—one that provides for public infrastructure, protects people against illness, offers education services, and takes care of children, the elderly, the disabled, and those afflicted by temporary economic dislocation. If, by contrast, you’re looking for “socialists” who believe that we ought to have large scale public ownership of industry then I think you would find very few socialists in France (indeed, it was Lionel Jospin’s gauche plurielle that spearheaded major French privatizations in the 1990s) or Sweden to say nothing of the United States.
28 Responses to “The Full McCarthy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 10th, 2009 at 10:28 am
The Black Caucus just visited Fidel Castro. What more proof do you want?
April 10th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Of course, Matt meant to say that you would find few French socialists in the French Socialist party. In Olivier Besancenot’s New Anti-Capitalist Party, while perhaps not yet mainstream, does have a significant following.
Overall, French politics is much more wide-ranging than ours, with both good and bad aspects.
And DTM, you did hit it out of the park. WTF is up with all these new stadiums? Wrigley and Fenway forever!
April 10th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Please ignore the unedited “In” before “Olivier” in my earlier post.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Bernie Sanders says he’s a socialist, so that’s probably one.
Probably is due to Matt’s reminder of the old usage, so Bernie may not be a true Scotsman after all.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Be interesting to see if, based on Bachus’s votes, he’s one of the socialists. Alabama’s not a rich state.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I’d be more inclined to think Bachus was seeking publicity if he said he knew of 17 GAY socialists in the House. He’d have the twofer threat of a sinister cabal actively working to undermine both our economy and our morals. He could even kick it up a notch and say they were doing steroids. Jose Conseco could appear before a committee and talk about muscles, sodomy and federally subsidized transit……
April 10th, 2009 at 10:53 am
DTM:
If that is what Bachus meant then he is calling fellow Republicans Socialists. Given that Republicans and DLC types here in Pennsylvania voted to give the sports teams(Phillies, Pirates, Eagles and Steelers) state money to build new stadiums.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Does Bachus have a count of brain-dead crackers in the House? On that, at least, he might be an informed source.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Given the “declining unpopularity of socialism,” I think it would be useful for Rep. Bachus to name these congressmen, so the public might know which to give extra special volunteer time and donations to in the next election cycle.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:05 am
At first I thought he was back-handedly defending socialism. Like, “Some of my best friends are socialists.”
April 10th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Ah, Alabama.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Are they “card-carrying” socialists?
April 10th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Since this “brain-dead cracker” hails from my state, but not my district (no… my district is infested by Aderholt. More brain-dead, equally cracker), I feel compelled to defend his anti-socialist agenda.
We all know in Alabama that socialism would only benefit those living in states with high poverty numbers, high unemployment, terrible health stats, and sub-standard education systems. We Alabamians have heard of such states, and feel for them.
It is comforting to know that Spencer has his list, and I hope the time has come to expose these card-carrying socialists before they work their evil in concert with Obama. If we act soon, perhaps we can stop the destruction of that small part of the capitalist system which managed to avoid being destroyed by Bush and his Republican Free Marketeers.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Can Rep. Bachus give us an estimate on the number of backward, ignorant redneck hicks in the House?
April 10th, 2009 at 11:48 am
While on one hand the desperation and insanity of the current GOP is comical to watch, would this all really be so funny if this current version of the GOP recaptured power?
April 10th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I am reminded of the SCTV spoof of Soviet TV. On the gameshow “Upskrabblnik”, the grand prize was moving up 100 places on the waiting list to by a Lada.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Yorgi, how am I to know what is wrong…
April 10th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
In Europe is the ’socialist’ moniker really used for labor-type parties? (Yes I know I could look it up, shush.) Whatever the monikers, ’socialist’ simply does not mean ’social-democratic’. It doesn’t. Its reference is economic systems, and it is applied only to those in which states and workers own the means of production and private interests do not.
I think in general people need to mount more frequent and forceful objections to misuse of the term.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Why object? They are defanging socialism by turning it into common sense reformist capitalism. I’d take the opportunity to demonize “free market” and turn that into the curse word that it should be.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Re: Its reference is economic systems, and it is applied only to those in which states and workers own the means of production and private interests do not.
Or at least, where states and workers own a dominating share of the means of production (not necessarily 100%), or which sees that as the ultimate goal. I’d consider Venezuela today a socialist state even though a good portion of the economy is privately owned. I also think that socialism can coexist with smallholder private production. What it’s opposed to, in principle, is _capitalist_ private ownership, not the ‘private ownership’ of the peasant or petty craftsman.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
In Swizerland, the Parti Socialiste and the Sozialdemokratische Partei are the same goddamn party. It’s the same thing, really, except Social Democratic tends to be the Germanic term, Labor the English-language term, and Socialist the romance term. Of course, this is just a generalization.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Given that House Republican’s seem to define anything to the left of pre New Deal capitalism as Socialism I’d say 99% of Democrats and a good chunk of Republicans are Socialist by their terms.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
If only 17 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives is a socialist, then the people worrying about socialism need to chill the heck out.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
In Europe is the ’socialist’ moniker really used for labor-type parties?
Consider the Party of European Socialists, the umbrella group for MEPs, which includes the British Labour Party, the French Parti Socialiste, the German SPD, the Spanish Partido Socialista Obrero Español, et al. As lewandorkski says, it’s mainly a sociolinguistic distinction.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:45 am
In many European countries, the names of left-of-center parties are a historic accident. For example, in the Netherlands the Labour Party is center-left, while the Socialist Party is further to the left. In Belgium, the Socialist Party is center-left, while the Labour Party are actual Communists.
April 12th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
If, by contrast, you’re looking for “socialists” who believe that we ought to have large scale public ownership of industry then I think you would find very few socialists in France
Hhmmmmm … not so fast. You’re correct that the Parti Socialiste certainly does not fit that bill anymore. But parties to the left of the PS have a long tradition of seizing significant share of the vote.
A recent high point, for example, were the presidential elections of 2002. In the first round, the three candidates of disparate Trotskyite parties received a collective 10.4% of the vote! On top of that, the regular (and more moderate) communist candidate got another 3.4%. That’s 13.8% for communist candidates in all – one in seven votes – not exactly “very few”.
Admittedly that was a high point for the Trots. Yet in the presidential elections of 2007, candidates to the left of the Socialists still pooled a full 9% of the vote. The three Trots – Olivier Besancenot of the Revolutionary Communist League, Arlette Laguiller of Workers’ Struggle and Gerard Schivardi of the Workers’ Party – pooled 5.8%, while the communist candidate and anti-globalist activist Jose Bove added another 3.3%.
Moreover, as a commenter above notes, the new Anti-Capitalist Party which Olivier Besancenot has now founded is making serious headway. In an opinion poll last month, the Anti-Capitalists were at 9% by themselves, while the regular communists were polling at an additional 6% (and the Greens at a further 9%).