The US right keeps accusing Democrats of ‘communism’. What does that even mean? | Jan-Werner Müller

The Trump campaign, flanked by an army of online trolls commanded by Elon Musk, has been struggling to settle on an attack line against the Democratic ticket. Of course, a decade or so ago no one would have thought a candidate unable to think of nasty nicknames had a problem; but Donald Trump has made us all ask stupider questions and have stupider thoughts. If in doubt, though - and no matter what any Democrat actually does or says - the Republican party will level the charges of "socialism" and "communism" against them.

To state the obvious: free lunches - ensuring that poor kids won't go hungry - are not communism. The one time in recent history that the US clearly resembled the Soviet Union - empty shelves and long lines outside shops - was under Trump; to be sure, other countries also had supply chain problems during Covid-19, but the former president proved exceptionally irresponsible and incompetent. But there's another, less obvious similarity with the late Soviet Union in particular: the experience of being at the mercy of bureaucrats. No, not the DMV, but vast private corporations with quasi-monopoly power, something with which Trump's Republican party, unlike the Biden administration, is evidently fine.

Ever since the New Deal, the US right has relied on an ideological mixture as incoherent as it is toxic, with charges of communism freely interspersed with accusations of fascism. Into that mixture, US reactionaries sprinkle what is politely called "anti-elitism" but often enough amounts to thinly disguised antisemitism. Musk and the Republican ideologues now regularly portray Kamala Harris as controlled by secret "puppetmasters", the Soroses (son and father) in particular, bent on advancing a "globalist" or "cultural Marxist" agenda.

Most rightwingers would struggle to explain what these terms really mean; but then again, for many of them politics is not a philosophy exam, but a contest over what can incite fear and hatred of dangerous Others threatening supposed "real Americans". One fairly simple, almost intuitive throughline, however, is the notion that Real America wants individual freedom, while Real America's enemies are collectivists bent on creating all-powerful bureaucracies whose business is not business, but telling people what to do. (That is also why, when pressed, rightwingers will inevitably identify "bureaucrats" and the "managerial class" as core members of the "liberal elite".)

The truth is that much of day-to-day life in the US is horrendously bureaucratic: filling out "paperwork", spending hours on hold, being at the mercy of individuals who might be reasonable when they have a good day (and respond to the plea "Can I talk to you like a human being?") or simply use discretion to say no when they happen to have a bad day. Europeans never believe this could be the reality in the land of the free, because European pro-business parties like to sell them the story that every day in the US, somebody starts the equivalent of Microsoft in their garage.

Meanwhile, plenty of Americans do not see that US businesses can be bureaucratic nightmares because, to be blunt, they know nothing else. Often unable to travel for financial reasons, they accept red scare tales about countries they've never seen. Democrats are complicit in encouraging a nationalism that makes the case for reform unnecessarily difficult: if people are constantly told by both parties that theirs is the greatest country ever, why mobilize for fundamental change?

Capitalist bureaucracies are maddening, but the madness has a method: it's driven in part by fear of liability (something Democrats are reluctant to address properly) but above all by the hope that frustrated customers will eventually just give up and let the insurance claim go, rather than spend another two hours on the phone listening to the automated message: "Your call is important to us." Corporate power has increased enormously in recent decades, partially based on the rightwing doctrine that monopolies are OK as long as they benefit consumers. Bureaucratization has also increased in areas where the state, driven by neoliberal ideology, has tried to engineer competition in public services - in the process creating ever-larger bureaucracies devoted to measuring and surveillance. George W Bush's No Child Left Behind is a prime example.

The Biden administration has at least tried to change course on monopoly power, under the leadership of Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission, whose career started with an attack on the mistaken pro-monopoly theory. The government has gone after "junk fees" such as exorbitant credit card late fees; most recently, with its Time is Money initiative, the White House is confronting predatory capitalists using red tape to extract time and, ultimately, money from powerless customers unable ever to "speak to a representative". Meanwhile, just as with the upside-down reasoning about monopolies, distinguished defenders of the little guy such as Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina have twisted themselves into justifying junk fees.

True, daily indignities and frustrations in dealing with private-sector bureaucrats are trivial compared with the horrors of 20th-century totalitarianism. But it's not trivial to want to make life just a little fairer by reducing the power of private actors to behave like dictators.