The hard-core right that dominates the hard-to-comprehend Republican party likes to call President Barack Obama a “socialist.”
It’s a word they bandy about a lot.
It’s also a word they don’t understand.
Obama is several things — some bad, some good.
But “socialist?”
Hardly.
Those who think politics is best served by stereotyping uses one-word attacks a lot.
They label opponents liars, traitors,communists, socialists, crooks or even worse.
But, in the 2016 Presidential election there actually is a self-declared socialist on the ballot.
Meet Bernie Sanders, listed as an “independent” on his biographical sketch as a Senator and the man who ran for office and won the job from Vermont by calling himself a socialist.
Want to be correct in this election?
Walt up to Bernie Sander and call him a socialist.
He will smile and shake your hand.
In American politics, it is rare to see a candidate for office embrace socialism as an identifying cause.
Even more incredible is the fact that a self-declared socialist ran neck and neck with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and is projected to win the New Hampshire Democratic primary next week.
Sanders, like most politicians, talks a good game, complete with vague generalities about facing the fear of Americans.
You want fear? Take a hard look at his proposed programs. They are filled with collectives, taxpayer gouging desires to gouge taxpayers to let the government run and control our lives even more than it does now.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery,” said Winston Churchill, the former prime minister of England who knew a thing or two about the differences between democracy and socialism.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money,” said another former British prime minister: Margaret Thatcher.
Another view from Alexis de Tocqueville, the French political thinker and author of Democracy in America, considered one of the best analyses of our political and social system: “Democracy and social have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
A self-declared socialist for President? Incredible.
OK, maybe it’s not that incredible, given the sad but true realization that the Republican leading the Presidential polls is an egomaniac narcissist named Donald Trump, a bellowing and profane real estate and casino promoter who ran four businesses into bankruptcy, cheated and dumped wives while nailing the nest applicant for the job and left investors and partners in financial ruin.
It is telling to see the Republican Bible quoting hypocrites rationalize supporting a man who can’t identify a single quote from the Good Book, who claims the President “schlonged” a female candidate for President and who bragged about lusting after his young daughter.
So watching enthusiastic support from others who crowd into halls to cheer a socialist like Bernie Sanders may be minor.
Or is it?
Is America so out of control that voters think the answer to the nation’s problem can come from a socialist?
Seems that way. Republicans have Donald Trump. Democrats has Bernie Sanders. Voters have need to worry.
If Trump fails, the next madman waiting in Republican wings is Ted Cruz.
Perhaps the end if near. Given the state of madness in the American political system in this insane political year, that end may be long overdue.
___________________________________________________________
Copyright © 2016 Capitol Hill Blue
3 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders: A ‘real’ socialist”
If you want people to be empathetic with each other, then a little sharing of misery is not a bad idea. Very very few of those with bumper stickers saying “Make welfare as hard to get as a building permit” have ever had to apply for or live upon welfare… It’s amazing how ‘tough on crime’ politicians change their tune after a little imprisonment (and they have it easy).
As far as Maggie Thatcher goes, I think we could feed and house a lot of the homeless and hungry before Charles Koch ran out of money.
To dispense with De Tocqueville, when liberty has become so wildly unequal, a little restraint and humble servitude is not a bad idea either. Recall the guy himself was a lord and plutocrat – One thing he never had to do was eat humble pie and live off the good will of his fellow men.
The end may be near. One can only hope.
Why yes, I do support Bernie Sanders for President. Funny you should ask…
Jon
Just for fun, I did some math.
Last I saw somewhere, Charles Koch was worth 45 billion dollars (nothing on Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Walton heirs, Carlos Slim, or his brother, but we’re just talking one guy here) and let’s leave him five billion dollars (still one of the world’s richest men).
Let’s say that a room for rent is $500 per month. In San Francisco that won’t get you a street parking space, but in Des Moines or Peoria it’ll do. Let’s also say that $500 a month is not unreasonable for food, clothing, a car if you need one (and given the misery of public transit in the USA, you do), so that’s a thousand bucks a month to live upon.
$12,000 a year. Given forty billion dollars, that says that C. Koch, this one guy, by himself, could support ten thousand people for three hundred years… Yeah. Please to check my math. Thanks,,
J.
I come here for Doug Thompson’s rants, but they do still need proofreading. “WaltZ”, “collective” (singular, I’d say, and I’d also lose the comma, but I ain’t a professional writer) and “the end if near”? C’mon. J.
Comments are closed.