why young people react favorably to the word socialism

A recent Pew survey asked people to react to the words “socialism” and “capitalism.” It reveals some quirks, like the 12% of Tea Party supporters who favor socialism–what’s up with them? (See the table below.) But I’m especially interested in the age differences, brought to my attention by Iris Deroeux.

Among 18-29s, 49% react favorably to “socialism,” compared to 31% of the whole adult population and just 13% in the 65+ age range. Fewer young people (46%) react favorably to “capitalism.” The latter is not a wildly popular term in the whole sample, but around half the individuals in each age group like it.

One could explain young people’s favorable response to “socialism” in several ways. Their experience with actual capitalism has been limited to the past decade, which was a bad one. Arguably, they don’t have as much information/understanding of socialism as older people do–although I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion without data. (I would rather suspect that hardly anyone knows what it is.)

But here’s my actual guess: young people have heard “socialist” thrown as an epithet at Barack Obama. The President remains popular among them, and to the extent that he has lost popularity, a major reason is his perceived unwillingness to confront his opponents: the very people who label him a socialist. Those opponents (conservative or “movement” Republicans) have very weak youth following. So every time they call the President a socialist, the reputation of socialism rises.

What should “socialism” mean, anyway? I would say: Workers’ or popular control of the means of production. In a socialist society, either the workers own and manage the factories and farms by committee, or the government (seen as responsive to the whole population) owns and manages all the productive assets. Genuine popular control may be impossible because of Michel’s Iron Law of Oligarchy–which asserts that a small group will inevitably seize assets in their own interest–or it may be undesirable, but it is clear enough as an ideal.

By this definition, the United States has never been socialist, but the elements of our economy that could be described as socialist are relatively old and have shrunk. I am thinking of the Postal Service, public schools and universities, the Forest Service, prisons, and scattered agencies like the Tennessee Valley Authority and NASA. All could be described as providing goods or services by directly employing workers in the state sector. But all have lost their monopolies in an age of UPS and FexEx, the University of Phoenix, school vouchers, SpaceX, and for-profit prisons. The US has never nationalized companies, and worker-owned enterprises have always been small.

Another definition holds that a government is socialist if it taxes and spends in order to distribute goods or social outcomes more equally. I would reject that definition because it conceals an important difference between states that produce things and states that buy things from private vendors. Our governments (at all levels) tax and spend, but to a large extent, they spend tax dollars on capitalist goods and services. Social Security checks go to individuals who buy what they need on the market. Medicare and Medicaid checks go to private hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and physicians’ practices. The Department of Defense buys aircraft carriers from Northrop Grumman et al. I see that as regulated or subsidized capitalism, not socialism. It is the central direction of the Obama administration, which has tried to stimulate capitalist enterprise and subsidize and regulate private medical insurance. When they’ve ended up owning an enterprise, they’ve tried to get rid of it as fast as possible: what I’ve called “hot potato” socialism.

It would be analytically less clear, but not wrong, to assert that any government that taxes and spends is socialist. In that case, however, Mitt Romney is only a few percent less socialist than Barack Obama is, and FDR was only a bit more socialist than Herbert Hoover was. Socialism can’t be a deep political divide if all governments have taxed and spent since the 1700s. (We just haggle over the quantity.)

That’s why I think modern libertarianism often adds two ingredients: 1) taxing and spending should be local or state prerogatives, and 2) any federal spending should be limited to the express purposes listed in Article I of the Constitution. There are arguments for these views, but it’s important to notice that they are but weakly tied to the basic arguments against socialism. If socialism is taxing and spending, then any American city would be a socialist republic even if the federal government got completely out of the business of education, welfare, health, and environmental protection.

To return to the survey results: I doubt very many Americans have a sharp definition of socialism, and I suspect that our implicit definitions vary quite widely (from any degree of government-funded welfare to a Leninist state monopoly of production). “Capitalism” seems surprisingly unpopular to me, and “socialism” polls better than I would have expected. I would guess that reflects a backlash against the way the term is being used to marginalize President Obama, rather than an actual endorsement of socialist principles–but who knows?

Connie Flanagan at Tufts

1 Reply

University of Wisconsin Professor Constance Flanagan has won the 2012 Tisch Research Prize, which recognizes her career of distinguished research on young people’s civic engagement. The award will be presented at Lincoln Filene Hall, Tisch College, on March 26 from 4:30-6 pm. Following a very brief ceremony, I will interview her about her work and major findings. We will then welcome the audience to join the conversation about what encourages young people to develop as active citizens, what results from their civic engagement, and how their political identities vary.

An RSVP is not required, but it would be helpful if you would indicate that you plan to attend by clicking here.

Connie Flanagan is a psychologist who had investigated young people’s civic and political engagement in Europe, Latin America, and in the United States among college students, non-college-bound young adults, and adolescents. She conducts both qualitative and quantitative research, thinks and writes theoretically, and has launched civic education programs for undergraduates at both Penn State and Wisconsin. She has won many awards, served as a mentor for many colleagues, and written widely cited works.

are college faculty responsible for educating the whole student?

(Washington, DC) I am at a conference at which most of the participants–who represent a few dozen diverse colleges and universities–believe that faculty should take more responsibility for the overall welfare and development of their students. Professors should worry about problems (such as depression and interpersonal conflict) that interfere with learning, and they should treat students’ non-academic experiences as assets for learning.

I agree that many students, including those enrolled at expensive, private colleges, face significant challenges outside of the classroom that should be addressed. I also agree that the best education always draws on the “whole person.” But whether faculty should pay attention to these issues is a more complicated question. Consider professors in the following imaginary cases:

  1. A poorly funded metropolitan public university whose student body (of more than 50,000) is mostly composed of part-time commuters older than 25. The issues that arise in their personal lives clearly interfere with their learning. If daycare falls through, they will fail a course. At the same time, their experiences from family, work, and community are educational assets. But each professor teaches hundreds of such students every semester. Their personal challenges seem overwhelming. The faculty have their own problems balancing work and life on inadequate salaries–many are adjuncts. They are likely to agree that students need help with psychosocial problems, but they may not feel that the responsibility can justly be assigned to them. Professors may also resist being paternalistic toward adult students.
  2. An expensive, private, selective college. It may employ more professionals in student affairs than faculty. For a sticker price of $50,000 or more, it provides 24/7 services for its undergraduates, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and well-appointed facilities. The students may, on average, have higher family incomes and social status than the faculty. Professors should recognize that these students still have psychosocial problems, including depression, which are relevant to their learning. (And to teach them is the faculty’s job.) Yet professors can reasonably conclude that students’ problems are mainly someone else’s business.
  3. A large, research-oriented university with impressive graduate programs, labs, and libraries. Its students probably face personal and psychosocial problems at rates approaching those at the metropolitan public university, and the institution’s support per/student is probably scanty. But faculty have legitimate reasons not to make addressing their students’ needs a high priority. Professors don’t conduct research and train PhD students just for the prestige and grant money or for self-indulgent reasons. They are trying to cure HIV/AIDS, save migratory birds, preserve the heritage of the Renaissance, or understand the relationship between freedom and prosperity (to name just a few examples). These are idealistic goals, requiring a degree of commitment and even self-sacrifice. When faculty weigh an extra hour trying to cure cancer versus an hour caring about undergraduates’ depression, I think they have legitimate reasons to stay in the lab.
  4. A teaching-oriented liberal arts college in a small town. In this case, the implicit agreement holds that the college will take care of the “whole student.” That is pretty obviously what all the faculty and staff are employed to do. Besides, the students may represent a substantial proportion of the town’s population, so they are neighbors and fellow citizens as well as “customers.” The college may not have highly impressive labs or libraries, and its students may be some of its most important assets. So this is a case where holistic concern for the student is obligatory.

Because students at all four kinds of institutions bring problems and assets from outside of academia, we should pay more attention to their whole lives. I think there are ways to integrate concern for the “whole student” into all kinds of courses and programs. But we shouldn’t pretend that this is easy or free of tradeoffs and legitimate concerns.

Newt Gingrich’s contract with Fannie Mae

2 Replies

(Washington, DC) Newt Gingrich released his contract with Fannie Mae just in time to argue about it with Mitt Romney. At the Florida debate, Romney said, “This contract proves you were not a historian. You were a consultant …. And you were hired by the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac.” Gingrich replied, “Gov. Romney has done consulting work for years … I’ve never suggested his consulting work was lobbying.”

The problem is not whether Newt Gingrich “consulted.” Consulting could mean anything, including historical research. The contract is fairly remarkable for not saying what his consultancy will entail. There are no deliverables, no scope of work, no deadlines, no metrics. I don’t know how common such vagueness is on K Street, but no organization I have ever dealt with would tolerate it. I can think of only two explanations:

  1. Fannie Mae and Newt Gingrich had an understanding about what he would do that they did not want to commit to paper. For instance, he was going to lobby but didn’t want to register as a federal lobbyist. Or …
  2. Gingrich was not going to do anything. Fannie Mae was simply willing to pay him $300,000 to keep him happy and friendly.

If Gingrich was selling the influence he had obtained as a public official, I think that’s fundamentally unethical. At a minimum, it should be disclosed. If he was selling something of intrinsic value, such as history or strategy, then I don’t see why it would be left unmentioned in the contract.

action civics goes mainstream and gets controversial

1 Reply

The phrase “action civics” was coined last year by a group of people and organizations that encourage k-12 students to choose, discuss, and study social issues and take collaborative action. I’m a charter member of the National Action Civics Collaborative and wrote about the first Action Civics Conference on HuffPost.

Much to my surprise, on Jan. 10, Education Secretary Arne Duncan explicitly quoted our phrase. “The new generation of civic education initiatives,” he said, “move beyond your ‘grandmother’s civics’ to what has been labeled ‘action civics.'” He cited Mikva Challenge, one of the leaders of the National Action Civics Collaborative, as an exemplary program.

That reference caught the attention of Chester E. Finn, Jr., an often insightful conservative voice on education. In a column entitled “Should Schools Turn Children into Activists? And Should Uncle Sam Help?,” Finn expresses some concerns about “action civics.”

He begins with the premise that “pretty much everybody favors better ‘civics education,” adding that everyone “is alarmed that barely a quarter of U.S. school kids were at or above the ‘proficient’ level on the 2010 NAEP assessment of civics.”

I share Finn’s concerns about civic knowledge, but I would note that the NAEP is designed to yield scores in the ballpark of the ones we get. The specifications for the test require, for instance, that a certain proportion of the items be “advanced,” meaning that only 5% of students will be expected to answer them correctly. So the idea that “barely a quarter of students” scored at proficient is mainly an artifact of the test specifications. The greatest value of the NAEP is for tracking trends over time and comparing groups of students. Overall, the trends in the NAEP civics have been remarkably flat, and I would describe the test as a hard one. But, just like Finn, I would like to see kids do better.

Finn proceeds to describe the key debate in the field pretty accurately and fairly:

It is, indeed, a modern platitude that “we must do something to improve Americans’ knowledge of civics and government.”

But there is a problem in civics education, a sort of dividing line, about which there is far less agreement across society. On one side, we find an emphasis on infusing kids with basic knowledge about government, an understanding of the merits (as well as the shortcomings) of American democracy, and a sense of what can still be called patriotism: the belief that this country and its values need to be defended. …

On the other side, we find much greater emphasis on civic participation and activism, on voluntarism and “service learning,” and on what is often termed “collective decision making” (or problem solving) and “democratic engagement,” which often boils down into the communitarian view that issues facing society are best dealt with through group action, by people joining hands and working together rather than through the political process.

That description seems about right. I’m on the “democratic engagement” side, but I am afraid I have to agree that it often degenerates into apolitical and unintellectual service. I’d only add that the “communitarian view” is itself controversial among people who support something like “action civics.” If, for you, the real goal is free and robust debate about social issues, or critical use of the mass media, or political activism (important to Mikva), or “public work,” then you may not like to be called a communitarian.

If you read Finn carefully, you’ll notice that he sees some value in the democratic engagement side. (E.g., “I will admit, after watching the antics of Congress, many state legislatures, and the current GOP presidential candidates, that American society would benefit from more ‘working together’ than our elected officials have displayed of late.”) His main rhetorical strategy in arguing for the “basic knowledge” side of the debate is to raise questions about phrases found in a recent report to which I am a signatory. For instance, he asks:

  • Values examined by whom? What sort of “action”?
  • What exactly are “generative civic partnerships” and who in particular is supposed to be “empowered” to do what?

Those are fair questions. For one thing, they point to actual linguistic vagueness in some of our documents. For another, Finn has a right to be worried lest people whose political views he doesn’t share start requiring kids to examine his values and take action against his policies.

If I had to frame a full response, here would be some of my leading points:

  1. The frightening declines (i.e., changes over time) do not involve young people’s political knowledge, but rather their actual experience participating in voluntary groups and deliberating with others who hold different views. Test scores in civics are flat; the number of credits earned in social studies has risen; but membership in groups, attendance at meetings, and discussion of issues have fallen badly.
  2. That first point should alarm conservatives at least as much as liberals, because it is evidence of a shrinking civil society and a weakening voluntary sector.
  3. Social studies teachers are not a bunch of liberals intent on turning kids into Saul Alinsky; they are very mainstream and perhaps a bit conservative about both politics and pedagogy.
  4. Despite segregation by race, class, and ideology, all classrooms contain students who hold diverse political views. Good pedagogy requires evoking their diverse views and getting them to disagree well (with evidence and civility).
  5. My own core commitment is to open-ended politics. I don’t believe neutrality is possible or that the pursuit of neutrality is desirable. Any teaching does and should impart values. But you can create discussions and decision-making processes that are outside your control, that go where the group takes them. Open-ended interactions are scarce at a time when politics is manipulative and strategic, education is closely constrained, and people have segregated themselves into ideological silos. For me, creating space for open-ended politics is the heart of “action civics.”