FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Great Bernie Debate

by

In the last several days, CounterPunch has served as a debate forum on the presidential candidacy of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed socialist and, for some inexplicable reason, the apparent darling of the left. CounterPunch chief editor Jeffrey St. Clair and managing editor Joshua Frank began the discussion with their articles, Bernie and the Sandernistas, and The Wheels Fell off the Bernie Sanders Bandwagon, respectively. Then Patrick Walker followed up with We’re Not Sandernistas: Reinventing the Wheels of Bernie’s Bandwagon. Mr. Walker states that “a certain criticism of Sanders is implied” in his strategy, and that Mr. Sanders is worthy of ‘critical support’.

It seems to this writer that such a strategy is akin to the usual ‘lesser-of-two-evils’ choice with which the United States voter is faced every four years. And it is increasingly difficult to find that ‘lesser’ evil, as the two major parties blur the lines that once, however slightly, separated them. Mr. Walker appears to perpetuate that limited choice. Said he: “So the trick is to find an electable candidate who’s satisfactory on one or two of the most crucial issues and to support that candidate’s election, reserving the right to otherwise disagree openly with that candidate and to pressure him or her to adopt more of your views.” With all due respect to Mr. Walker, this seems very pie-in-the-sky. It is hard enough (impossible, actually) to hold an elected official responsible for what he or she promised to do as a candidate, let alone sway their position on something else.

Let’s look for a moment at the objections initially raised by Mr. St. Clair and Mr. Frank, and see how easy it might be to overlook some of Mr. Sanders’ more odious positions. First, some comments by Mr. St. Clair.

* “It is almost possible to anesthetize one’s conscience against the moral revulsion prompted by Sanders’ adamantine allegiance to the Israeli state in the face of one atrocity after another.” Readers of Counterpunch will know without question that nothing could cause this writer to so anesthetize his conscience against those constant, ongoing crimes against humanity, and, as Mr. St. Clair points out, it is only “almost possible” to do so. ‘Almost possible’ is still impossible. Strike one.

* “The self-proclaimed independent socialist (Mr. Sanders) even initially backed Bill Clinton’s cruel bombing campaign against Serbia, an independent socialist country.” Mr. St. Clair also points out that “Sanders isn’t a pacifist”. Strike two.

* “One must, I suppose, tolerate Bernie’s ongoing backing of a bloated military budget, especially for the production of fighter jets and aircraft carriers, because it means jobs for Vermonters. That’s merely called bringing home the bacon and all politicians do it, more or less.”

So support of a ‘bloated military budget’, when the cost of higher education is outside the reach of most U.S. citizens, homelessness and hunger are major issues, and unemployment, despite rosy government statistics, remains high, is a simple political reality. But wouldn’t a true ‘independent socialist’ look for alternatives to provide his constituents with employment, perhaps one that doesn’t involve manufacturing tools to kill people in foreign countries? The late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King stated that the U.S. is the biggest exporter of violence in the world; that statement is as true today as it was when Dr. King said it forty-eight years ago. It seems that supporting the current military budget is definitely perpetuating the problem, not fostering a solution. Strike three, and Mr. Sanders is out.

Well, perhaps we will give Mr. Sanders another inning, sufficient to air some of the grievances about which Mr. Frank wrote.

* Frank, in summarizing an earlier article he wrote, noted Mr. Sanders’ “rubber-stamping of various wars.” This, of course, is consistent with the senator’s support for the military budget. As long as the country has all that military hardware and software, it might as well use it to invade or bomb some country somewhere. Strike one.

* “His crude vote during Bill Clinton’s presidency that peeled away the rights granted by habeas corpus”. Is any comment on this even required? Strike two.

* His tacit endorsement of the crown princess Hillary Clinton, the woman he is ostensibly opposing, who will bulldoze over him in every primary, and his statement that he will not run as an independent, should he lose the Democratic primary. Any endorsement of Ms. Clinton is enough to disqualify the endorser. Strike three, and Mr. Sanders is out again.

One might say that Mr. Sanders has no choice but to endorse Mrs. Clinton; look at the alternatives being served up by the Republican Party! Which brings us back to the ‘lesser of two evils’ concept, and business as usual in U.S. politics and governance.

So what is the seductive allure of Mr. Sanders? Why has the left, abandoning Mrs. Clinton to what is commonly referred to as the center, jumped on his shaky bandwagon? Granted, he talks a good talk about Wall Street corruption, and endorses a reasonable minimum wage. But in light of the issues mentioned above, is this, along with the attractive title ‘socialist’, really sufficient to cause this much excitement and devotion?

When discussing U.S. political campaigns, it is difficult not to mention the old tale of the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’, and Mr. Sanders and his campaign certainly invoke such thoughts in this writer. In the fable, it was said that the Emperor is wearing magnificent clothes, but that only his intelligent subjects could see them. One can also say that Mr. Sanders is a progressive socialist, fighting for the poor and the working class, opposing the status quo and wanting to usher in a brand new world, but that sadly, only his fellow-progressives recognize his greatness. But his greatness, like the emperor’s clothes, simply doesn’t exist. Support for the military, defending Israeli genocide of the Palestinians, reducing the rights of the U.S. citizenry are not the hallmarks of a progressive socialist. They are, instead, the characteristics of a common U.S. politician. No amount of pretty words can camouflage that fact.

This writer shares Mr. Walker’s desire for a real alternative, a candidate who will put the needs of the people first, who will support a foreign policy that endorses the basic human rights of all people, and that uses diplomacy rather than bombs to support it. Unfortunately, Vermont Senator Sanders is not that candidate.

More articles by:

Robert Fantina’s latest book is Empire, Racism and Genocide: a History of US Foreign Policy (Red Pill Press).

January 16, 2018
Mark Schuller
What is a “Shithole Country” and Why is Trump So Obsessed With Haiti?
Paul Street
Notes From a “Shithole” Superpower
Louisa Willcox
Keeper of the Flame for Wilderness: Stewart “Brandy” Brandborg
Mike Whitney
Trump’s Sinister Plan to Kill the Iranian “Nukes” Deal
Franklin Lamb
Kafkaesque Impediments to Challenging Iran’s Theocracy
Norman Solomon
Why Senator Cardin is a Fitting Opponent for Chelsea Manning
Fred Gardner
GI Coffeehouses Recalled: a Compliment From General Westmoreland
Brian Terrell
Solidarity from Central Cellblock to Guantanamo
Don Fitz
Bondage Scandal: Looking Beneath the Surface
Rob Seimetz
#Resist Co-opting “Shithole”
Ted Rall
Trump Isn’t Unique
January 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Democrats and the End(s) of Politics
Paul Tritschler
Killing Floor: the Business of Animal Slaughter
Mike Garrity
In Targeting the Lynx, the Trump Administration Defies Facts, Law, and Science Once Again
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Hong Kong Politics: a Never-Ending Farce
Uri Avnery
Bibi’s Son (Or Three Men in a Car)
Dave Lindorff
Yesterday’s ‘Shithole Countries’ Can Become Classy Places Donald, and Vice Versa
Jeff Mackler
Lesser Evil Politics in Alabama
Jonah Raskin
Typewriters Still Smoking? An Interview with Underground Press Maven John Campbell McMillan
Jose-Antonio Orosco
Trump’s Comments Recall a Racist Past in Immigration Policy
David Macaray
Everything Seems to Be Going South
Kathy Kelly
41 Hearts Beating in Guantanamo
Weekend Edition
January 12, 2018
Friday - Sunday
George Burchett
Wormwood and a Shocking Secret of War: How Errol Morris Vindicated My Father, Wilfred Burchett
Roberto J. González
Starting Them Young: Is Facebook Hooking Children on Social Media?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Between the Null and the Void
Andrew Levine
Trump After Bannon: What Next?
John Davis
Mud-Slide
Ajamu Baraka
The Responsibility to Protect the World … from the United States
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Stirs the Methane Monster
Paul Street
Lazy Liberals and “the Trump Effect”
Carmen Rodriguez
Trump’s Attack on Salvadoran Migrants
Mike Whitney
Oprah for President, Really?
Francisco Cabanillas
The Hurricane After Maria
Luciana Bohne
World War I: Crime and Punishment
Steve Martinot
The Ideology of Pepper Spray: Force and Violence in a Can
Martin Billheimer
Beyond the 120 Days of the Silicon Valley Dolls
Patrick T. Hiller
An Olympic Glimmer on the Horizon – North Korea and South Korea Stepping Down the Escalation Ladder
Ron Jacobs
The Vietnamese War: a Different Take
Binoy Kampmark
Fuming in the White House: the Bannon-Trump Implosion
Joseph Natoli
What to Worry About and What Not to Worry About
Colin Todhunter
Monsanto, Bayer and Neoliberalism: A Case of Hobson’s Choice
Brian Cloughley
Trump’s Bullying of Cuba
Kenneth Surin
Bigger in Texas
Arturo Desimone
The Untouchable Leader Who Stood Up to Gandhi
Peter Crowley
To Cheerleaders of Iran Protests: Iran is Not Our Enemy, a Sponsor of Terror or a Tyranny
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail