Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Making Nice With Steele | Main | How Steele Can Get His Groove Back »

Mar 12 2009, 2:08 pm

Socialism, American-Style

This post was updated with new polling data 3/16/09 (new material denoted by an asterisk, "*").

"Our Socialist Future," reads the cover line on the March 23, 2009, issue of the National Review. Echoing a flurry of warnings from other conservatives, author Mark Steyn says that those who liken President Obama's program to FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society, or Jimmy Carter's unnamed nationalizations are making "nickel 'n'dime comparisons. It's all those multiplied a gazillion-fold and nuclearized -- or Europeanized, which is less dramatic but ultimately more lethal."

Will this alarm -- and other expressions of concern by prominent Republicans including John Boehner, Jim DeMint, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann -- resonate with the American public? Are Americans, the majority of whom still appear to support the Obama program, likely to quail at the prospect of a "Europeanization" of the land of the free that transforms it into a clone of, say, France? That depends upon which side of the American psyche you examine. For within the American soul lurks a constant tension between distaste for the government sector and suspicions about the motives and practices of the business sector, between appreciation for the benefits of free markets and desire for basic societal protections and services.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is right that we're not "European socialists" at heart. For example, the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey found that while 70 percent of Americans agree that it is the responsibility of the state to take care of the very poor who cannot take care of themselves, only 28 percent "completely agree." In contrast, majorities in Spain, Germany, Britain and Sweden "completely agree" with this statement, and around nine-in-ten completely or mostly agree. And while a 51 percent-majority agreed in a Pew Research poll last fall that "the government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt," 69 percent of Americans also worry that "poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs."

In the 2007 survey, 65 percent of Americans also said they believe the government has too much control of our daily lives. However, on this question, our European counterparts agree. Similar majorities of the Germans (74 percent), French (65 percent) and British (64 percent) also believe the government has too much control.

Nor is there any question that America still loves the free market. In the 2007 survey, 70 percent of Americans agreed that "most people are better off in a free-market economy, even though some people are rich and some poor." Most recently, in Pew Research Center's latest poll, released this week, fully 70 percent of the U.S. public agrees that people are better off in a country with a free market economy even if it suffers "severe ups and downs."*

So if the public remains dubious about government, how does it feel about the private sector these days? Does it agree with CNBC commentator Larry Kudlow that Obama "is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds."  Well, Kudlow may find many Americans less than raring to enlist in the forces of resistance.
 
Even before this fall's deluge of catastrophic collapses , from the implosions of AIG and Lehman Bros. to exposure of Bernard Madoff's $50-billion Ponzi scheme,  polls found Americans increasingly restrained in their enthusiasm for business in general. In an April 2008 survey, roughly half (47  percent) viewed corporations favorably, while nearly as many had a negative opinion (45 percent).  Although support for government regulation of business hasn't risen, 50 percent of Americans think it is necessary to protect the public interest, compared with 38 percent who say that regulation usually does more harm than good. In fact, not only do more Americans worry that businesses are snooping into their personal lives (74 percent), than think government is doing so (58 percent), fully six-in-ten think that business makes too much profit, and an overwhelming 78 percent think there is too much power in the hands of large companies.

By the same token, the latest poll finds that a 54-percent majority now thinks it a good idea for the government to exert more control over the economy than it has in recent years. Even among Republicans, nearly a third (32 percent) endorses the idea of the government exerting greater control over the economy.*

What's more, while Americans are loyal defenders of the free market, it just better be their free market. Approval of free trade fell in several Western countries from 2002 to 2007, but the largest decline among the 35 countries for which comparative data are available took place in the United States. In fact, the country with the world's largest economy is the least likely among the 47 nations surveyed in 2007 to embrace global trade. (So no surprise that despite the warnings of economists about the dangers of inserting "Buy American" provisions into the stimulus package, two-thirds of Americans thought it was a good idea.)

America retained its title as the most anti-trade country in the 2008 survey. Only 53 percent (down six points from 2007) of Americans thought trade was good for their country. Compare that with the 87 percent of Germans and 82 percent of the French who have a positive view of free trade.

How about international corporations? That's not our kind of capitalism either. Just as many Americans say that multinationals are having a bad influence on the country as say they're having a good one (45 percent in each case). In fact, in the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey, you had to be a member of the former Eastern Bloc -- Poland (60 percent), Czech Republic (63 percent) and Slovakia (72 percent) -- to think international companies had a good impact on your country.

Many in the punditocracy have picked up the line that Obama is "more popular than his policies." Well, the reverse might now be said about government. Yes, the public may believe that government is inefficient, controlling and downright scary. But some of its programs and policies are nonetheless pretty popular.

Take, for example, government-guaranteed health insurance, a classic big-government remedy. Nearly two-thirds of Americans now favor such a program, even if paid for by increasing taxes. And while polls in recent years found the public split, usually along partisan lines, as to whether workers should be allowed to invest some of their Social Security taxes in private accounts (at least before the recent market crash), in a November Democracy Corps poll, 63 percent rated reforming Social Security to ensure that it's a safety net as more important than reforming it to allow personal savings accounts. And a tiny 6 percent in a December Kaiser/Harvard poll opted for decreasing spending on Medicare. Pew's latest  poll also finds 52 percent of the public opposed to requiring even higher income people to pay more for Medicare coverage and opposing cuts in agricultural subsidies by 47 percent to 40 percent.*

Americans do overwhelmingly believe the strength of this country is mostly based on the success of American business. But most also see a sturdy role for government both in curbing the excesses of the marketplace and in providing public goods and services throughout good times and bad.

Jodie Allen and Richard Auxier are, respectively, a senior editor and researcher at the Pew Research Center.

Comments (7)

There is a direct correlation between a nation's love of free trade and the extent of its trade surpluses. Americans would love free trade also if we did not have consistent trade deficits....


As a non American it seems odd this desire to label medicare as socialism. Socialism is a broad set of beliefs and doctrine, not simply government or partially government run services. Just as the French(and pretty much everyone else have socialized(using the definition government run and paid for by taxes) police, firemen, military and highways so does the US. It doesn't have to be so, the Romans had private fire departments that would show up and wait to get paid before putting out fires or more recently fire departments that would only put out fires if your house had a badge indicating you were covered but the right insurance. It was possible for the owner fronting a public road to determine if it should be paved in front of his house in past England. Renaissance Italy had its private armies. More examples can be posted so where is the outrage over these so called socialized services.

Rather than solve problems the US seems to be caught in a desire for ideological purity. Even if something doesn't work don't follow proven approaches to fixing it either do nothing or put your faith in the failure being the result of not being ideological enough. It seems almost to be a a modern cargo cult. If you believe hard enough and devote enough sacrifices o the cargo gods then it will be solved or alternately the people who are effected negatively did not pray hard enough.

Recently at the University of Toronto it was found that the more religious tended to absolve themselves of failure more than the less religious. I suspect if studies were made of the more ideological the same results would be true. Why try to solve a problem when you have the answer to everything. Its much harder to try to solve the problems of a country if you actually have to think rather than plant labels. This applies equally to both libertarians and socialists.

..."religous tend to absolve themselves of failure more than the less religious..."
Only logical, if you consider that God helps those who help themselves... unless you think that God is capable of helping folks generate failure. Besides, statistics show that conservatives/religious are more generous with their own money, whereas liberals are more generous with other people's money.... Socialism fails when they run out of other people's money... said a non-American, Margaret Thatcher!

circleglider

You can find a survey statistic to support just about any narrative — so what? Just because the questions were asked by the same organization (The Pew Research Center) doesn't mean they rise to the level of a meta-analysis.

Taking unrelated data at their face value can lead to perverse results. What can you really say about Americans vs. Europeans other than we're both are skeptical of large, powerful and (apparently) unaccountable organizations — be they government or large, multinational corporations? That, plus the natural tendency of people to view the world from the relatively narrow perspective of their own personal situation.

Richard Block

A week in politics is a long time. But a year? The authors don't seem to notice that the events of the past six months might have some bearing on the balance between government and the private sector in people's minds. Any large majority against government activism has been blown away by events. I think we may be in for a repeat of the 1932-1968 wipeout of the Republicans and their fear mongering about government. The American people realise that unrestrained private enterprise created false wealth and real disaster, and that government needs to respond. I think those in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia - who now own the country - would agree.

American roads, railways, hospitals and schools - what government does - are inferior to every single advanced European country, including France. I live in Europe, and I know the facts. If the role of government is to help people live a better life, it would not be a tragedy for the US to match Europe, instead of falling so far behind.

I also live in Europe, and Richard Block's assertions are without merit. For one thing, the U.S. has not had "unrestrained private enterprise" -- not by a long shot. The genesis of this crisis was government meddling in the credit markets by not just encouraging, but actually paying financial institutions to make loans to people who were bad credit risks. The resulting housing bubble then led to many of the compounding issues which occurred. If lack of regulation was the problem, why are Europe's highly-regulated banks in even worse shape than America's?

Regarding the comparison of government services in Europe and the U.S., it is easier to provide government services in a densely-populated continent, especially when you have extra cash to spend on social services due to your having outsourced the primary function of government (national defense) to someone else. If the U.S. were to adopt Europe's model, America's standard of living would drop by a third and Europe would soon discover that life is harder without a sugar daddy. And Americans would soon learn that "free" health care means waiting for that urgent MRI until sometime after death.

Lots of good points from both Richard and Ben. But I have to point out, Ben, that you didn't pin any blame on lack of regulation; maybe you were just mirroring Richard's opposite viewpoint.

My understanding is that the wave of foreclosures in and of itself would not threaten the economy (national or international) at its core. It's all the financial highjinks concocted around those bad (and yes, government-incentivized) loans that made it a Crisis with a very capital C. Oh how Wall Street has evolved since the time when they just used to buy stocks to make their money. Private entities that were too big to fail made huge, huge gambles and crossed their fingers and waited...

The only complete solution is to enact a law against the existence of any private company too big to fail. Period. And I am, as George W. is fond of saying, "a free market guy." They won't do this though, I don't think. What they will do instead is to make lots of laws about how much capital must back up loans and leverage ratios and all that. And in fifteen years, maybe more maybe less, lobbyists will clear some sort of path to a vehicle like we saw in the SIV's. And we will once again have a gigantic and dumb non-human economic terrorist hanging around in the back-alleys of our accounting ledgers.

But by then Sarah Palin will be President. And she will elect to "just see what happens if we stand over here and be free marketeers like real Americans" while the world economy collapses hard and China makes its move to secure world-domination and true Communism comes to America for the first time ever.