With Vermont senator Bernie Sanders continuing to surge in the polls, the reality of democratic socialism continues to appear at the forefront of American politics. In a previous article, I discussed democracy and the implications it has on white privilege. With the reemergence of Sen. Bernie Sanders on the national stage, it seems fit to revisit the concept of democracy as it relates to socioeconomic equality.
An outspoken and self-proclaimed democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders has made it a point to emphasize the importance of democracy in creating national public policy. Many of his policies have wide public support as a result of their supposed benefits to the general populace. The Hill reported in 2018 that “seventy percent [of Americans] said they supported providing Medicare for All, also known as single-payer healthcare… according to a new American Barometer survey.” The poll, conducted by Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company, found that 42 percent of respondents said they “strongly” supported the proposal, while 28 percent said they “somewhat” supported it (1). Bernie Sanders has often cited this fact during debates as a reason for why his specific version of Medicare for All should be implemented.
The founding fathers denounced pure democracy in many ways. First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, regarded democracy as the following, “Too many… love pure democracy dearly. They seem not to consider that pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication, and with it a thousand mad pranks and fooleries” (2). Pure democracy oftentimes leads to the abuse of minority opinions. As Benjamin Franklin once stated, “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself…Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote” (3). Plainly stated, pure democracy itself is not moral. That is why nations such as the United States have constitutions set in place to suggest guidelines for democracy to exist within. These guidelines are exist to protect minority opinions.
Left-wing activists often point to Republicans as being fascists. When in reality the left-wing, big government activists are often those who espouse fascist ideology (such as limiting freedom of speech). Pointing to pure democracy as a reason to implement legislation is immoral, if and only if it violates any aspect of basic human rights, or violates the United States Constitution. Medicare for All, or legislation that violates any aspect of freedom of speech, goes against the U.S. Constitution.
So I pose to my readers the following question: if indeed we rely on the free market to provide all goods at a fair and even price, how then is it moral for the government to enter into the free exchange of goods and services and price fix any good? It is only through the pure, free and even exchange of goods and services that the healthcare system in the United States can be fixed and be able to provide for the poorest in our society.