Michelle Goldberg thinks that he would not.
[Sanders'] unlikely ascendance would be a blow against the corrosive cynicism in which authoritarianism thrives. America would be the country where young people of all races powered a campaign that proved stronger than plutocracy, stronger than nationalist demagogy, stronger than any of the tools that men like Putin have used to bring liberalism to its knees. To young idealists around the world, America would look — dare I say it — great again.
Building a multiracial social democracy is one of the great political challenges of our time. Few nations on earth have figured out how to create, in heterogenous populations, the solidarity needed to sustain a robust public sphere. Putin has exploited this difficulty, stoking tribal fears in countries with changing demographics to make liberalism look like a form of social dissolution.
If enough Americans unite across racial lines to replace Trump with a Jewish socialist, it might mean that our country is figuring out how to transcend the illiberalism of our age. I still find it difficult to believe that Sanders can pull it off. But if he does, Putin won’t be pleased for long.
In a piece arguing against calling people Russian assets, including Sanders, some reasons to think that
Putin might be pleased.
If we look at who is actually doing Russia’s work — dividing Americans against one another with these suggestions of foreign influence — it turns out that these journalists are much better candidates for ‘Russian agents’ than any of the politicians (excepting Ms. Clinton, who is right there with the journalists advancing irresponsible rhetoric). I do not say this to accuse them, or anyone, of being a Russian agent. What I mean to say is that Putin has more reason to be happy because major TV networks are accusing the winner of the Nevada caucus of being a spy than he has reason to feel good about Bernie Sanders having won.
Bernie Sanders’ election might possibly be good for Russia insofar as he is able to make good on his campaign rhetoric to undercut America’s energy exports. Russia’s economy and much of its geopolitical power derives chiefly from its energy exports, especially to Europe. Sanders’ desire to cut American exports would drive up prices for energy in the global market, enriching Russia, and make Europe much more dependent than currently on Russian gas and oil. Sanders’ stated desire to cut American military spending would probably also delight the Russians. Yet none of those policies is being advanced by Sanders because they would help Russia. He wants to cut energy exports because he believes it will help the climate; he wants to cut military spending as a believer in a longstanding left-liberal/progressive critique of America as warlike and imperialistic. Any benefit to Russia is coincidental.
So what's more harmful to Putin's Russia and its interests? Hope and aspirations for multi-racial democracies? Or the loss of oil and gas monopolies?
7 comments:
I'm so old I can remember when young people powered a campaign that elected a President who wanted to send concerns about Russian authoritarianism back to the 1980s.
"a multiracial social democracy"...but, of course, you don't get that with the Democrats. The Dem obsession with categorizing people rigidly and demanding that they stay within the identities ascribed to these categories is practically guaranteed to create a toxic atmosphere of intergroup hostility and resentment.
I should think Putin would be thrilled with the destruction of American prosperity. Would Sanders agree, or has he managed to persuade himself that American prosperity can be looted to serve his priorities, without impoverishing it the same way it's worked out the last 3 or 4 dozen times someone tried this same scheme?
I take the panic over Sanders as a plausible nominee to be a revealed preference that most Democrats know Sanders would kill the capitalism part of their crony capitalism racket.
I find it hard to believe that a politician with three homes won't manage to keep the cronyism going. It's not like he made his money in business and then went into politics. Politics is all he's ever done, and he's rich.
I'm afraid it will take more than preserving the cronyism in a 1-mile radius around Bernie Sanders to save the economy for the rest of the country.
Michelle Goldberg, by her own statements, values emotion and intention over facts. Youthful idealism is seen as something pure and infallible. She is very like Bernie in this way, stuck in the 1970's. Let's all sing "Imagine," okay?
The second section of your post, Grim, makes the grave mistake of arguing from facts. I suppose that's nice for those here, but they will have no effect on those outside the circle. Those facts don't matter. Christopher B is right that Sanders would kill the capitalism part of crony capitalism, and some Democrats at least understand that the game is up at that point. On the Republican side there are those who are dim and don't understand that the "crony" part they have benefited from is not actual capitalism, which is why they defect and sign on to other "good ideas" so often. they think the "crony" part is the good part. some cynical and some naively.
Post a Comment