There is a linguistic sleight of hand happening in American politics, a persistent con job that has warped the national psyche for decades. It is the deliberate mislabeling of basic human dignity as “radical.” We have allowed a conversation to take place where “far-left” is used to describe policies that are, in reality, the boring, bureaucratic status quo of nearly every other industrialized nation on Earth.
Consider what constitutes “far-left” extremism in the current American discourse. Guaranteed health care, paid family leave, government negotiation for drug prices, and gun control.
To hear certain pundits and politicians tell it, these are the first steps on the road to a communistic nightmare. They are framed as dangerous, un-American experiments that would destroy the economy and crush freedom.
But look at the data.
Look at the world outside our borders.
These ideas are not fringe.
They are not experimental.
They are the standard operating procedure for the vast majority of the developed world.
Take the issue of guaranteed health care. In the United States, the concept of a single-payer system or universal coverage is treated as a socialist pipe dream, a political third rail that “centrists” shy away from. Yet look at our peers. The United Kingdom has the National Health Service. Canada has its single-payer system. Germany, France, Japan, Australia, virtually every major democracy provides health coverage as a right of citizenship, not a privilege of employment.
These systems are not perfect. They have their own bureaucratic hurdles and funding debates. But they function. They ensure that a diagnosis of cancer or diabetes does not lead to personal bankruptcy. They ensure that a parent does not have to choose between putting food on the table and taking a child to the doctor.
In America, however, we have normalized the cruelty of medical debt. We have accepted that life-saving insulin should cost as much as a car payment. To suggest that we should align ourselves with the rest of the modern world is not “radical,” it is a long-overdue correction of a moral failing.
The same dynamic applies to paid family leave. The United States is one of the only wealthy nations on the planet that does not guarantee paid leave for new parents. In a country that constantly lectures the world on “family values,” we force mothers and fathers to return to work mere weeks after childbirth, often jeopardizing the health of the infant and the stability of the household, simply to survive. In contrast, nations like Sweden, Norway, and Japan offer months, sometimes over a year, of paid leave.
Is it “far-left” to believe that parents should have time to bond with their newborns without falling into poverty? Is it radical to suggest that families should not be crushed by the economic burden of bringing a new life into the world? Most of the developed world rejects the idea that economic productivity should supersede the well-being of the family.
Only in America is this viewed as a reasonable trade-off.
Then there is the issue of drug prices. In the United States, we forbid the government, the single largest purchaser of drugs in the country, from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies. This is a sweetheart deal for big pharma, a handout paid for by the taxpayers. Meanwhile, countries like Canada, the UK, and Germany use their bargaining power to keep drug costs affordable. The result is that Americans pay significantly more for the same prescriptions than our counterparts abroad. This is not a matter of “free market” economics. It is a matter of government corruption masquerading as policy. To demand that the government negotiate for better prices is not radical, it is common sense fiscal stewardship.
Finally, we arrive at gun control. This is perhaps the most contentious issue, yet the evidence is undeniable. After the mass shooting in Port Arthur in 1996, Australia enacted sweeping gun reform. They bought back hundreds of thousands of firearms, banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and implemented strict licensing. In the decades since, gun violence and mass shootings have plummeted. The United Kingdom did the same after Dunblane. Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and correspondingly low rates of gun homicide.
In the U.S., we treat the regulation of firearms as an existential threat to liberty, while we accept the daily slaughter of children as the price of that liberty. The rest of the industrialized world looks at us with confusion. They have decided that the right to live outweighs the right to own weapons of war. That is not a radical position. It is the fundamental basis of a social contract. Citizens cede some absolute freedoms to the state in exchange for security and order.
So, why are these policies labeled “far-left”? Why is the baseline expectation of a functioning society treated as a dangerous ideology in America?
The answer lies in the power structure. The status quo in the United States is incredibly profitable for a very small number of people. It is profitable for insurance companies who deny claims. It is profitable for pharmaceutical giants who price gouge. It is profitable for politicians who accept millions from the NRA to ensure that nothing ever changes.
If we admit that these ideas are normal, we admit that our current system is broken. We admit that the suffering of the American people is not a natural disaster, but a choice made by our leaders. To maintain their grip on power, the ruling class must gaslight the public. They must convince you that the bare minimum of human dignity is a radical experiment. They must frame the status quo as the only option, and any deviation as the road to ruin.
But the jig is up. The internet has opened our eyes to the world beyond our borders. We can see how others live. We can see that it is possible to get sick without going broke. We can see that it is possible to have children without going into debt. We can see that it is possible to go to school or a concert without the fear of being shot.
These are not “far-left” values. They are human values. They are the hallmarks of a civilization that values its citizens more than its capital. The United States likes to think of itself as the leader of the free world. But on these fundamental measures of human well-being, we are not leading. We are lagging behind. We are the outlier.
And it is time we stopped treating “normal” as if it were a revolution.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
All. Of. This. Thank you once again for a thoughtful piece.
The Overton Window is a thing, but I’m sure the usual suspects here will claim they “don’t believe in it.”
And don’t even get me started on right wing “family values.”
Once you see what this country tolerates and ignores that other civilized, Western, advanced nations *do not*, you can’t unsee it.
Thank you once again, for reading, and for your continued support. There will be a companion piece tomorrow, about the ACTUAL radical left. :)
I don’t get what this article has to do with the title. The title was never addressed. The article is relatively benign. But regarding the title, if the radical left don’t exist, how can they be so annoying?