After this, only the most fanatical will deny that he is very strictly a one-issue candidate. What’s even worse, Bernie referred to this freak of a Pope as “moral” because the clown blabbed something Bernie liked about “the economy.” The clown’s actions, of course, matter nothing now that he screeched out a few hypocritical phrases on the evils of greed while drowning in riches and kissing the ass of the world’s most evil billionaires.
32 responses to “One-issue Candidate”
-
And he’s trying to inject the sense of morality into how we do economics.”
He added, “Obviously there are areas that we disagree on — women’s rights and gay rights, but he has played an unbelievable role of injecting a moral consequence into the economy.”
I’m confused about what moral sense and moral consequence he’s talking about. It’s not like Catholicism has karma as a concept. And opposing women’s rights and gay rights often has the real world effect of making them poorer, often to the point of destitution.
I don’t know who Sanders is trying to pivot towards. The people who don’t want women’s rights or gay rights aren’t usually driven by interest in economic justice. The trope is “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” not “socially conservative, fiscally liberal” and the people who are all “I want a better economy but not for those *&$#)@ people” have better candidates than Sanders.
LikeLike
-
“I don’t know who Sanders is trying to pivot towards. The people who don’t want women’s rights or gay rights aren’t usually driven by interest in economic justice. ”
- I don’t think he’s doing it to gain voters. I think things are much, much worse than that. I believe he actually honestly likes the Pope and thinks he’s a good guy because of those “greed is evil” screechings. And this level of dumbness simply scares me. I’d much rather Bernie were fishing for voters like a regular manipulative, dishonest politician.
LikeLike
-
-
Bernie Sanders is now a politician of the establishment. That doesn’t mean he’s a “single issue candidate”, because he’s running his campaign on several issues (not just the economy but also immigration, war, foriegn policy in general), and he’s articulated these views in a lot more depth than most US politicians. But it does mean many of his positions are flexible and several can be disregarded if it’s in his political interest to do so.
I’m queer, and I’d definitely rather be represented by Bernie, who has supported gay rights since in the 80s, over Hillary, who described herself as a supporter of “traditional marriage” until 2013. Of course, I don’t particularly trust either of them, but they’re not “single issue candidates”, they are “viable candidates”, which means they have a lot of responsibilites, and not to people like me.
-
” That doesn’t mean he’s a “single issue candidate”, because he’s running his campaign on several issues (not just the economy but also immigration, war, foriegn policy in general”
- I stopped reading after this because if you still haven’t noticed that Bernie has zero knowledge of and interest in foreign policy, then you are either willfully blind or not very aware of your surroundings.
LikeLike
-
He didn’t have a confident stance on foriegn policy at the start of his campaign because he was only beginning to face the prospect that he was now somewhat electable. That means his views had to be rearranged into something palatable to a wider electorship and his party establishment, which is a challenge when the Democratic Party is dominated by strong interventionists. That’s why he didn’t speak on foriegn issues as confidently as he did in 2003 when all anybody knew about him was his firm stance against the Iraq War. Of course Clinton’s campaign was more than willing to take advantage of this. But if it were the case that he had no interest in foriegn policy, his campaign wouldn’t tout his history with Iraq War and contrast it with Clinton’s so much.
His campaign is now running on more strongly on foriegn policy since for the most part, he’s bitten the bullet and gone with a platform essentially similar to Obama’s… which is still miles more progressive than Clinton. He’s now outlined a plan for immigration reform and a more comprehensive stance on foriegn policy which is much better than Clinton’s, who can boast experience and determination, but not so much judgement, given her history. This WILL win him points with the demographics he is trying to win over, especially when it boasts comparison with Clinton’s much more hawkish tendencies.
-
Also yeesh, sorry for how poorly written this is. I’m kinda loopy on cold medication at the moment.
LikeLike
-
OK, do share then, how did Bernie’s position on Russia evolve since his embarrassing statements about asking Putin to stop selling oil and gas? How did his position evolve on the subject of his equally embarrassing statements that “Muslim troops should fight ISIS”? We never hear of Christian, Jewish or Hindu troops. Not since the Middle Ages, at least. So when one mentions “Muslim troops” there can only be one reason: he has no idea which countries he actually has in mind.
So let’s hear about this new foreign policy of Bernie’s. I’m sincerely interested.
LikeLike
-
He’s now fallen on the policies of the current Obama administration – building up NATO forces to take on Russia (as well as economic and diplomatic pressures, including “freezing Russian assets across the world”), supporting airstrikes, drone strikes, training troops, “sharing intelligence” and monitoring terror suspects and groups.
As for ISIS, he’s still going with his coalition in the Middle East, for which he’s mentioned Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and Jordan, as the Obama administration (and Clinton!) has. Like Obama, but unlike Clinton, he doesn’t support a no-fly zone. He acknowledges that Saudi Arabia is more interested in combating the influence of Iran in Yemen, and demands a shift in priorities.
Now, how is that plan much more different from Obama’s, or even Clinton, who has also emphasised a coalition that asks these Middle Eastern countries to shift their priorities in foriegn policy on their say so? Clinton thinks “we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS, and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.” I would also like Turkey to stop killing Kurdish people, but I doubt they’re going to do it on Clinton’s command anymore than mine.
She also would hope to draw Saudi Arabia “into a broader reading of what’s going on in the region” as they “need to understand they have to help us stabilize at least Northern Syria to start with”, as if they could ever be persauded away from their conflict against Iran in Yemen. Isn’t this every bit as naive as Sanders’ plan? It’s pretty obvious that the problem here is how the American govenment views the Middle East, not Sanders alone.
The main differences between Sanders’ foriegn policy and Clinton’s is that Clinton emphasises American leadership, supports a no-fly zone, and is far more aggressive towards Iran. In these cases, Sander can affirm his disdain for American exceptionalism and refer to his history with the Iraq War as evidence that he wouldn’t lead America into a quagmire like Clinton would. Meanwhile, Clinton invokes Henry goddamn Kissinger as her most trusted advisor.
So it’s not as if Bernie’s foriegn policy is exactly good, because it can’t be if he expects to be electable in America. I’d argue it’s less horrifying than most and will have a lesser human cost, but is still awful for largely the same reasons as any other American politician’s.
LikeLike
-
Building up the NATO to take on Russia? Really? Bernie said that? This is fantastic news.
You made my day, seriously. I have no idea how I missed such a development but I now feel better than ever for donating to Bernie’s campaign.
LikeLike
-
He said that in one of the February debates with Clinton:
“But bottom line is: The president is right. We have to put more money. We have to work with NATO to protect Eastern Europe against any kind of Russian aggression.”
It directly contradicts his earlier statements and the media hasn’t paid a lot of attention, so if you happened to miss that debate, that’ll be why you didn’t know.
Also: I am sorry for consistently mispelling the word foreign.
LikeLike
-
-
-
-
So, you really find Obama that much better on foreign policy than Clinton? I am glad to hear it but had not seen the difference as being so great — and of course this is one of the areas in which I find Sanders less than perfect (although I am a Sanders voter)
LikeLike
-
Like most human beings with a conscience, I can’t support Obama’s foriegn policy. But his policies haven’t escalated the problem as fast as Clinton’s would.
LikeLike
-
They also provide a neat contrast between him and Clinton that he can play on to affirm his lack of establishment ties, for people who still he doesn’t have any.
LikeLike
-
OK, good. I now conflate the two since she was his secretary of state (and was very destructive in this role, I must say)
LikeLike
-
-
-
-
-
I had no understanding of the Sanders appeal until this:
http://www.technologyasnature.com/always-surprised/
So I think I get where a lot of the support comes from (millennials rebelling against severely crimped life options brought to them by the baby boomers).
Nonetheless howsomeever and inconsideringness, he’s a socialist and socialists never fix the kind of problems that gullible voters elect them to fix (if anyone can provide a counterexample I’d love to hear about it) and he has no understanding of or interest in foreign policy. He wants to talk to Putin about renewable energy?
My prediction (or desperate hope) for whatever it’s worth is that somewhere or other a more mainstream and effective policy is noticing the great voter rebellion this year and learn to channel it towards better policies.
The US is essentially in a second Gilded Age with inequality and status seeking reaching unsustainable levels and this will probably start reversing as it did before, the question is; how?
-
Is Bernie Sanders a socialist?
“I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal”
That, to me, sounds like the platform of a liberal, not a socialist.
-
“Nonetheless howsomeever and inconsideringness, he’s a socialist and socialists never fix the kind of problems that gullible voters elect them to fix (if anyone can provide a counterexample I’d love to hear about it) and he has no understanding of or interest in foreign policy. ”
- I agree completely.
“My prediction (or desperate hope) for whatever it’s worth is that somewhere or other a more mainstream and effective policy is noticing the great voter rebellion this year and learn to channel it towards better policies.”
- The only thing that will help is a collective realization that a massive educational project is needed to help people adapt to the new millennium. All the electoral weirdness we are seeing now has a simple explanation: people are stupid.
LikeLike
-
-
Color me puzzled by the outpouring of anger and intolerance directed against Bernie Sanders. (And also against the pope)
These are two intelligent, experienced men who are brave enough to take public positions against the prevailing capitalistic economy and in opposition to the powers that control the Western world.
They should at least be recognized and applauded for challenging mainstream economic and political dogma. The fact that they are unwavering in many of their positions emanates from strength of conviction. Is that unbending conviction what is so upsetting?
No one has to agree with Bernie (or the pope) on every issue, or even on any issue. Everyone is free to state disagreements and refute his positions. But there is an unusual tone of spite and disrespect against Bernie that borders on outrage or even hatred. That, I do not understand.
LikeLike
-
No, this is me being warm and fuzzy. When I’m angry and hateful, it looks very different. 🙂
I love Bernie, he’s a very passionate, sincere person. The Pope I do detest. He’s a self-involved, vicious little twerp. (This is me being angry.)
LikeLike
-
I don’t know what to think of this Pope, as he has been turning out better than I expected (although he remains a Pope and all, and is bad on gender). I would be interested in what led you to this assessment of his personality, I have not been paying attention … it is just that I cannot seem to stop being suspicious of him
LikeLike
-
Come on, the Pope is just being the Pope. That’s his job.
LikeLike
-
I can understand your disagreement with church positions on moral issues. Lots of people have concerns about the church’s position on such things as birth control and divorce, not to mention handling of the pedophile issue.
However, regarding the pope as a person and leader of the Catholic Church, millions of people around the world would be shocked at your description of him as “self involved and vicious.” You are free to detest the pope if you wish. But your opinion is in the extreme minority.
LikeLike
-
By the way, millions of people adore Trump, worship Stalin and deify Putin. So what, I should follow them in their misguided adoration?
LikeLike
-
Clearly, Stalin was vicious, and possibly Putin as well (I’m not so well-informed about Putin).
To compare the pope to Stalin is beyond reason.
LikeLike
-
I’m not comparing anybody. I’m pointing out that opinions of millions are very often quite dumb.
LikeLike
-
-
Thanks for putting up this digest, it is interesting
LikeLike
-
-
-
-
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment