Is Andrew Gillum a socialist?
The most often cited evidence of his socialist sins are his support for expanding taxpayer-subsidized health care coverage to everyone, or Medicare for all; raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour; and increasing the state corporate income tax from 5 percent to 7 percent — a 40 percent tax hike is the way it is breathlessly described by the DeSantis propagandists — to fund a $1 billion increase in funding for education.
The dictionary definition of socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. Let us concede, arguendo, that Medicare, the minimum wage and traditional public education are all socialist in intent, operation, and effect, as are Medicaid, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and funding the delta between Social Security contributions and benefits to name but a few of the numerous "socialist" programs with which public policy in America is riddled.
To continue on the path on which we have set our feet, if supporting these socialist programs makes one a socialist, then Gillum is indeed a socialist, as is certainly almost every elected official in Florida, Democrats or Republicans. A phone booth could not be filled with politicians of any stripe who oppose Medicare, any minimum wage at all, and public schools.
But surely DeSantis is not a socialist. Yet, if he is not, then why is Gillum? It has to be because Gillum wants more, much more, of the things DeSantis also supports. Gillum wants more comprehensive health care coverage, a higher minimum wage and more money for schools. But that cannot be right either; disagreements about the appropriate scope of publicly subsidized health care coverage, what constitutes a living wage and how much is adequate education funding are the rule rather the exception, both between the two major political parties and within them.
Clearly, the differences between DeSantis and Gillum on these issues and other "socialist" programs are differences of degree, however great, not differences in kind. They are the clash of the world views of an aggressive heir of Great Society liberalism who sees a much larger role for government in promoting the welfare of the commonwealth and a right wing populist who feeds on the anger, envy and angst of those who want to make America 1956 again.
