I believe this is what sets Bernie and AOC apart from most who now hold national positions with Democratic support
In a nut shell it's their explicit condemnation of rampant greed in America, and how that greed coupled with concentrated power is rapidly destroying the chance for most Americans to live decent lives. Note, I didn't say that they stand out from all elected Democrats in that regard, just from most. Further, I fully acknowledge that virtually all elected Democrats share a strong concern for the economic well being of both working and middle class Americans, and that their votes typically reflect those concerns.
What stands out for me about Bernie and AOC in particular, though, is their focus on the long term big picture, and their utter lack of moral ambiguity in regards to economic inequality. They are unafraid to call it blatant wholesale thievery by the top 1% of Americans at the expense of the bottom 90%, who increasingly must struggle to get by.
I'm going to use a photography metaphor here, and reference needing to choose which details constitute the foreground, and which the background, in the composition of a picture. Our side of the aisle, broadly speaking, pretty much agree on what the picture of America today encompasses, It's in the focus that differences emerge. Exposing and opposing greed is in the foreground of Bernie and AOC's messaging, it's not relegated to some corner in the background. In the finest tradition of the American Labor movement. they don't hesitate to loudly call out, "Whose side are you on?" They aren't cowered by the fear that they'll be called out for being "anti-business", because they stress the abject immorality inherent in allowing three hyper rich Americans to control more wealth than the bottom half of all our citizens combined. They do not shy away from emphasizing the obscene aspect of "obscene wealth."
Far too often I've heard leading Democrats go out of their way to assure the public at large that Democrats have no quarrel with anyone accumulating unlimited wealth, so long as they pay "their fair share" of taxes - defined for the most part as a fixed percentage of earned income, a percentage that has shrunken considerably since Reagan's "Revolution." Wanting to avoid being seen as "embracing class warfare" too easily results in unilateral rhetorical disarmament.
Most Americans are getting a very raw deal under this oligarchy, and virtually all of them know it. They aren't always as clear though on who is to blame. But Bernie and AOC leave little doubt on that. They paint our common enemies in bold colors and painstaking detail. They keep it front and center. And it isn't just Donald Trump and Elon Musk and whatever Republicans happen to be in office at the moment. The Gilded Age of a century past never ended in the dreams and aspirations of the amoral heirs of that prior oligarchy. Their continued greed increasingly bleeds vitality from the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans today.
Frankly, I'm mot surprised that Bernie and AOC's "Fight Oligarchy' campaign is resonating so strongly in parts of our nation no one would confuse with being solidly blue, that instead were purple or even red in the 2024 election. They are not mincing words. They are naming names and assigning blame. Bernie and AOC's straight forward indictment of greed at the expense of human needs, is breaking through.
= new reply since forum marked as read
the entire narrative. On this and all issues.
snip
In modern practice, social democracy has taken the form of predominantly capitalist economies, with the state regulating the economy in the form of welfare capitalism, economic interventionism, partial public ownership, a robust welfare state, policies promoting social justice, and a more equitable distribution of income.
Social democracy maintains a commitment to representative and participatory democracy. Common aims include curbing inequality, eliminating the oppression of underprivileged groups, eradicating poverty, and upholding universally accessible public services such as child care, education, elderly care, health care, and workers' compensation. Economically, it supports income redistribution and regulating the economy in the public interest.
snip
In the post-war era, social democrats embraced mixed economies with a predominance of private property and promoted the regulation of capitalism over its replacement with a qualitatively different socialist economic system. Since then, social democracy has been associated with Keynesian economics, the Nordic model, and welfare states.
snip
Nordic model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining based on the economic foundations of social corporatism, and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy – with Norway being a partial exception due to a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. The three Scandinavian countries are constitutional monarchies, while Finland and Iceland have been republics since the 20th century. All the Nordic countries are however described as being highly democratic and all have a unicameral legislature and use proportional representation in their electoral systems.
They all support a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility, with a sizable percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force in areas such as healthcare, education, and government), and a corporatist system with a high percentage of the workforce unionized and involving a tripartite arrangement, where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy is mediated by the government. As of 2020, all of the Nordic countries rank highly on the inequality-adjusted HDI and the Global Peace Index as well as being ranked in the top 10 on the World Happiness Report.
The Nordic model was originally developed in the 1930s under the leadership of social democrats, although centrist and right-wing political parties, as well as labour unions, also contributed to the Nordic model's development. The Nordic model began to gain attention after World War II and has transformed in some ways over the last few decades, including increased deregulation and expanding privatization of public services. However, it is still distinguished from other models by the strong emphasis on public services and social investment.
snip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model#Overview_and_aspects
An elaborate social safety net, in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare[15] in a largely tax-funded system.
Strong property rights, contract enforcement and overall ease of doing business.
Public pension plans.
High levels of democracy as seen in the Freedom in the World survey and Democracy Index.
Free trade combined with collective risk sharing (welfare social programmes and labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.
Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.
Low levels of corruption. In Transparency International's 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden were ranked among the top 10 least corrupt of the 180 countries evaluated.
A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace amongst themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law. Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination while Finland is ranked the least flexible. The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.
High trade union density and collective bargaining coverage. In 2019, trade union density was 90.7% in Iceland, 67.0% in Denmark, 65.2% in Sweden, 58.8% in Finland, and 50.4% in Norway; in comparison, trade union density was 16.3% in Germany and 9.9% in the United States. Additionally, in 2018, collective bargaining coverage was 90% in Iceland, 88.8% in Finland (2017), 88% in Sweden, 82% in Denmark, and 69% in Norway; in comparison collective bargaining coverage was 54% in Germany and 11.7% in the United States. The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.
The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.
Significant public spending, with Norway at 48.3% of GDP, Sweden at 49.4%, Iceland at 49.8%, Denmark at 50.8% and Finland at 55.8%. This is high even compared to the OECD average of 46.3%.
Overall tax burdens as a percentage of GDP are high, with 35.9%, 41.4%, 41.4%, 42.4% and 43.4% for Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark respectively. This is compared to the OECD average of 33.9%. The Nordic countries also have a relatively progressive taxation system in place; this along with their generous welfare systems have made them among the least unequal countries in the world.
The United Nations World Happiness Reports show that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption. The Nordic countries place in the top 10 of the World Happiness Report 2018, with Finland and Norway taking the top spots.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License
We currently have the embodiment of both stinking up the White House and it is dangerous.
Bernie and AOC are very well suited to offer a strong, sane alternative.
