I know the difference between Social Democrat (wishy-washy liberal stuff) and democratic socialist (someone who has some actual principles). I prefer the latter.
I wish he were a commie, but unfortunately he is not.
Well, that explains a lot. And it sets you up for a lot of disappointment. Nearly half of America wants government to be so small that they could drown it in a bathtub and I'd like for it to at least have a nice Jacuzzi to give it some room to wiggle, you seem to want it so big it needs to be wedged into an Olympic pool.
Social democracies have been a success in many nations and are a foreseeable goal here. Once you turn the corner into democratic socialism you begin to open up the same opportunities for corruption that have destroyed many other socialist states. Not unlike the corruption inevitable in a primarily capitalist state such as we are dealing with here and now. Social democracy, to me, represents that place between the frying pan and the fire.
Actually I won't be disappointed because I don't expect miracles. What half of the country wants can change if the economic landscape changes. When they hurt in their pockets then they'll start to look for alternatives.
As for corruption: It happens everywhere when there are large amounts of money involved. Socialism can't eradicate it anymore than Sharia Law can. However, you are incorrect in thinking that Socialism is more prone to corruption than social democracy. The difference is only in the orders of magnitude (usually higher in social democracy).
I have lived in very poor socialist countries. The problems are myriad, but there is a willingness to try and overcome them - whereas in social democracy they just look to blame some group.
Under capitalism, of course, they reward corruption - while making it seem like they are promoting free enterprise.
There is no panacea. But anything is better than moving backwards.
