No Economic Plan Needed if You Hate the President Loudly Enough
NEW YORK, N.Y. — America’s political revolution has finally produced the perfect modern socialist: Karl Marx with a communications degree, a podcast microphone and absolutely no intention of working in a factory.
The midterm elections demonstrated that American voters can become so angry with Donald Trump that they will enthusiastically support candidates whose economic philosophy might best be described as nineteenth-century European pessimism with a social-media marketing budget.
Marx himself spent decades explaining why capitalism would collapse. His modern American admirers have developed a more efficient approach: get elected and help it along.
The Modern Progressive Politician and the Billionaire Problem
The new progressive politician is an extraordinary creature. He condemns billionaires using a thousand-dollar smartphone, campaigns against corporate America on corporate-owned platforms and promises to abolish economic inequality while negotiating a speaking fee.
If hypocrisy generated electricity, Washington could shut down every power plant.
“He was on the sidewalk outside campaign headquarters for forty minutes, filming a video about the evils of big coffee,” said Priya Natarajan, a barista at a café across the street. “He had a large oat-milk latte in his hand the whole time. I made it. It was eight dollars.”
The communications degree is particularly important.
Traditional Marxists were burdened with dense economic theories involving labor, capital, class struggle and historical materialism. Their modern successors have compressed the entire philosophy into three words: rich people bad.
Everything else can be explained with an infographic.
Housing too expensive? Blame capitalism.
College tuition outrageous? Blame capitalism.
A government agency requires seven forms to approve a garden shed? Clearly, capitalism has failed again.
Under the new political system, no problem is too complicated to be blamed on somebody else’s wealth.
Real Voter Complaints About Rent, Insurance and Grocery Prices
The irony is that many voters supporting Democrats have perfectly legitimate complaints. Rent is painful. Insurance premiums are brutal. Food prices, tracked monthly in the Consumer Price Index, have turned ordinary grocery shopping into a financial negotiation.
But frustration with the current administration does not automatically prove that government ownership of everything is the cure.
That distinction tends to disappear during campaign rallies, especially when the candidate has a microphone and the crowd is chanting.
A transcript of one candidate’s podcast, posted to the campaign’s own website, captures the moment. Asked by the host how the district’s housing shortage would be solved, the candidate answered: “Look, the system is broken, and the people who broke it know who they are.” The host followed up. The candidate repeated the answer. The episode ran fifty-one minutes.
Imagine visiting a restaurant because you hate the previous chef, only to discover the replacement believes food should be distributed according to a central five-year plan.
You may receive soup in five years, provided the Ministry of Lunch meets its targets.
Why Higher Taxes on the Wealthy Don’t Settle the Question
Socialism also offers a wonderful solution to billionaires: remove the incentive to become one, then wonder why businesses stop investing. The Tax Policy Center publishes detailed distribution tables for every serious proposal. Most campaigns have not read them. A review of the platforms in question by a nonpartisan policy group found that four of the six contained no revenue estimate at all, and the other two cited “a lot.”
Fortunately, modern progressive politicians have solved the dilemma by distinguishing between unacceptable billionaires and billionaires who donate to the correct political causes.
The latter are called philanthropists.
The most fascinating aspect of the election is how easily ideological contradictions disappear under the influence of anti-Trump anger.
Candidates who might otherwise struggle to explain basic economics can apparently survive entire campaigns by discussing Trump’s personality.
Why explain marginal tax rates when you can produce another outraged television appearance?
Why discuss productivity when you can announce that the president is morally unacceptable?
America has not necessarily voted to abolish capitalism. Many voters simply wanted someone different in Washington.
But the loudest activists seem determined to interpret every Democratic victory as permission to reorganize the economy.
Karl Marx would be delighted.
Although after discovering the price of coffee in Manhattan, he might demand a refund on the revolution.
Five Observations on America’s New Socialists
- He’s against billionaires, and he’s recording that on a phone that costs more than my first car. You can’t do the revolution from a phone you’re still paying off. That’s not a revolution. That’s a payment plan.
- “Rich people bad.” Three words. Marx needed twelve hundred pages. This guy did it in a caption. And he got more likes.
- A communications degree. You know what that is? That’s four years of learning how to say nothing in a confident voice. And the country said, great, put him in charge of the money.
- Eight dollars for an oat-milk latte. At that price the revolution is already over. The workers have already lost. They’re just waiting for a barista to tell them.
- Soup in five years. Honestly, I’ve waited longer at the DMV, and at least the soup would be a surprise.