It is hard to think of a label that would more surely destroy a candidate's chances in an American primary election. This is a country in whose politics even the term "liberal" is a dirty word and is used as an attack weapon in much of the political discourse.
A "socialist" is even further beyond the pale. The political right in the US has invested huge effort and resources in convincing American voters that socialism is akin to even identical with communism, and is fundamentally un-American.
No candidate in his or her right (or even left) mind would willingly allow even a whiff of such a label to taint their campaign. So how does a candidate who not only embraces it and uses it proudly as a banner manage to do so well with the voters in Iowa and possibly elsewhere as well?
He is, after all, flying in the face of conventional wisdom, not only in the US but in much of the English-speaking world. Left-of-centre politicians in New Zealand, the UK, Australia and Canada, long ago conceded that to be labelled as a socialist is the kiss of death.
The banner that was once flown proudly by those who proclaimed the virtues of greater equality, of a fair deal for all, of an inclusive economy that allows everyone to contribute and to derive the benefit from being members of society has now been fearfully disowned.
So, what explains the surprising courage that Bernie Sanders has shown, and the success that, so far at least, he has enjoyed? Even if his campaign were to stall from this point on, and he were to return to decent obscurity, how are we to account for the fact that his willingness to describe himself as a socialist did not immediately knock him out of the race?
The answer lies in listening carefully to what he says. He hasn't used his socialism as either a sword or a shield. He has instead carefully explained what he means by it.
When Bernie Sanders says he wants "an economy that serves the interests of working people and not the billionaire class", when he laments the plight of graduates who end up with low-paid jobs and deep in debt, when he commits to equal pay for women, he recognises that the natural tendency of a "free-market" economy is to concentrate wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands, leaving the majority to fight among themselves for what is left.
His message that unless democratic government intervenes to regulate the "free" market and its outcomes, the rich will get richer and the poor poorer is, it seems, well understood by a large swathe of more thoughtful voters.
In describing himself as a socialist someone who sees that we are all in this together and that there is such a thing as society he also creates the advantage for himself of pointing up how much he differs from Donald Trump.
Trump is of course the archetypal "free" marketer. He is a cartoon version, a parody, of what the "free" market means. He is a self-obsessed "winner", he hates "losers", and he is used to grabbing what he can and devil take the hindmost.
Bernie Sanders shows that people will respond to his very different message, but only if they hear it and that requires someone with the courage to deliver it to them. Some of that courage would not come amiss in other Western democracies.
Debate on this article is now closed.
