Cass mentioned the other day that she thinks I'm sympathetic to Sanders. I guess, in a way: I'm not a socialist, and very much not one. On the other hand, he strikes me as basically honest. Being honestly wrong is not as good as being honestly right, especially if you are honestly wrong after a lifetime long enough to have learned better. But the honesty really does matter. My real candidate in this election, Jim Webb, was manifestly warm to him in the Democratic debate. "I don't think the revolution's going to come," Webb said, but he said it to a man he clearly regarded kindly after their interactions in the Senate.
When Wretchard says that the magic of Bernie Sanders is that he might really have illusions, there's something to that. When he talks about the Servile State, and the alliance of the establishments of both parties with this sort of crony capitalism, we know just what he means.
There are not only no perfect choices left, there are no good choices. There is a least worst. No matter what happens in November, at this point, we need to gird ourselves to be in the opposition for another long four years.
UPDATE: EU Court Outlaws Criticism of EU.
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.The law is an ass, and this is a beautiful illustration of why political violence can be eminently justified. For "English Common Law was swept aside," read, "Sweeping Aside the Constitution." It's a violation on a similar scale. If that vacant SCOTUS seat goes left, 'the law' will mostly be a similar exercise in power. That's how close to the edge we are: one seat, already vacant.
10 comments:
Very interesting. I happened to read recently Belloq's piece of the battle of Poitiers. That guys was all over the place.
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.
If you wish to see tyranny in action, this is how it starts.
Also, as to the original topic... like you, I am sympathetic towards Sanders. I agree that he supports an economic policy that has brought more poverty, suffering, and misery to humanity than any other (socialism being nothing but communism with a "human face"), but I also believe him to be an honest man who would obey the rule of law. He may dislike the system he must work within, but I have the impression he respects the institution. Hillary, I have zero doubt would instead do whatever she felt she could get away with. As she has already proven willingness to do so. I would much rather an honest man I can honestly disagree with than a dishonest woman (gender having no influence on the matter) that would see me silenced as the EU Court of "Justice" has done.
Exactly what evidence exists to prove that Bernie Sanders is honest? And even if he is, so what? There isn't any doubt that Hitler honestly believed the trash he spewed, and he was a decorated war veteran. Honesty and sincerity of belief isn't a virtue if it is misplaced, especially if it's placed in a system of government with a history of oppression and destruction like socialism.
I would also point out that Mr. Sanders chose to honeymoon in the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. While that doesn't necessarily make him a full blown traitor, it demonstrates a certain level of disloyalty. There is nothing praiseworthy in that. He was also a public supporter of the Sandinistas. I think he harbors more sympathy for communism than he would like to admit.
Exactly what evidence exists to prove that Bernie Sanders is honest?
His willingness to state EXACTLY what he wants to do with economic policy, a voting record that backs it up, a willingness to defend said record even when it could lead to greater support among his base (2nd Amendment issues specifically). Added to that, complete lack of evidence to the contrary.
And even if he is, so what?
Again, far better to have an honest foe than a dishonest ally. And better both than a dishonest enemy.
Honesty and sincerity of belief isn't a virtue if it is misplaced, especially if it's placed in a system of government with a history of oppression and destruction like socialism.
You'll note, I concur with your assessment of socialism. But do you believe Hillary is any less enamored with it (save for how she can personally profit from influence peddling), or that she would be willing to completely disregard the Constitution if she saw political advantage in doing so?
I would also point out that Mr. Sanders chose to honeymoon in the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. While that doesn't necessarily make him a full blown traitor, it demonstrates a certain level of disloyalty.
It may or may not shock you to learn that I also visited the Soviet Union during the Cold War (of course, one could hardly call 1990 the "height" of the Cold War, but I digress). And would you believe that the trip did more to influence me against Communism than my entire life prior to that trip ever had (it's one thing to hear of the atrocities of Communism, but seeing the day to day mundane evil of the system is in some way far more shocking). If his trip makes him a near traitor, what does my trip make me?
I think he harbors more sympathy for communism than he would like to admit.
I think he's made his sympathy pretty plain. But like most modern Communists, he believes that the Soviet Union didn't actually practice true Communism (the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is common among them). But unlike Hillary, he has at least always been honest regarding his sympathies. In an era when "liberal" was a dirty word, he took on "socialist" as his identity. He refused to run as a Democrat, because he considered them too right wing. I really don't see where deception plays much a part in his history.
Indeed, I'm not sure how much clearer Sanders could be than taking his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. He had to assume, at the time, that act would mark him for surveillance by the FBI for the rest of his life.
Likewise, the photos of him being arrested at Civil Rights protests. Now it's common for Democratic politicians today to act as if they all would have been on the side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Bernie Sanders really was. He was willing to get a police record, with all that entails, in order to be.
I don't doubt his sincerity. His judgment, but not his honesty.
In the 1980s, in his capacity as Mayor of Burlington, Bernie Sanders was very vocal in his support for the Sandinistas. I was not a supporter of the Sandinistas, courtesy of Sandinsta stances like the Joint USSR-Nicaragua Proclamation, March 1980.
The Soviet Union and Nicaragua resolutely condemn the campaign that the imperialist and reactionary forces have launched of building up international tension in connection with the events of Afghanistan, a campaign aimed at subverting the inalienable right of the people of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and other peoples of the world to follow the path of progressive transformation.
That made the Sandinistas rather emphatic fanboys for Soviet imperialism.
As further evidence of the Sandinista affinity for Soviet imperialism, consider Robert Czarkovski's book De Polonia a Nicaragua. Czarkowski was a Polish national who entered Nicaragua in early 1982 on a valid tourist visa. He was arrested at the border, on suspicion of belonging to Solidarity, and spent 5 months in Nicaraguan prisons until he was released.
I would love to have someone question Bernie Sanders on the above.While De Polonia a Nicaragua [From Poland to Nicaragua] is an obscure source, the Joint Proclamation appeared in Pravda, in the Sandinista newspaper Barricada, and in the Central American Crisis Reader. Jesse Helms inserted it into the Congressional Record. If Bernie Sanders made nice with such friends of Soviet imperialism while being aware of the above joint proclamation, he is a knave. If Bernie Sanders made nice with the Sandinistas without being aware of the above joint proclamation, he is a fool.
This is why I dislike Bernie Sanders.
Anyone who can be soft on communism at this point is either a fool or a knave. You're right that the Sandinistas were terrible, and the Soviets worse.
But there is an important difference between being a fool and being a knave. I don't think Sanders is a knave. Just an honest fool.
Well, as I pointed out earlier, Hitler was also very honest about what he wanted to do. Interestingly, I don't see anyone willing to mention his honesty when assessing his political career. Maybe that is because the awfulness of what Hitler professed far outweighed any consideration for his honesty. His honesty didn't make any of the millions whose lives he was responsible for ending any less dead.
Consequently, any character trait for honesty possessed by Mr. Sanders is irrelevant to the dangers presented by the soul-crushing, tyrannical and collectivist ideology he adamantly advocates. One need look no farther than what is currently happening to Venezuela to see what path the Bernie Sanders of the world would lead us down. The honesty of such people does not lessen the suffering of those condemned to live under their policies of their terrible ideologies.
Robbes Pierre was also honest, in an ideological fashion.
Sometimes the most dangerous foes are the true believers, not the corrupt ones. That's not a concept that people who want to avoid war and conflict at all costs, care to think about.
Post a Comment