This dailykos diary-essay was written with this first line, “I write this now in the hope of affecting voters in the Democratic primary in New York State on April 19th when it looked like the vote was going to be close, and I felt optimistic, but now Sanders has lost this primary by 20pts. The choice is really no longer his becoming the Democratic nominee, but whether he will pull back his criticism of Hillary’s character, rather than focusing on their difference such his attempt to get a single payer health system. As of now, he seems not to have changed his tone, and with every aspersion he casts on the honesty, the values of Hillary Clinton, he increases the chance of one of the two Republicans winning the Presidency. So, my personal endorsement of him was contingent on his having a reasonable chance of winning the nomination, but also know when it’s time to stop. If he can’t make this evaluation, there is no more logic for him not to back away, and continue only to focus on specific points of difference.
This is the diary written before the N.Y. Primary that I will leave up, with the understanding that conditions have changed. It’s time for Bernie Sanders to “come to the aid of his party” when the people have spoken
I ran in the Democratic primary for state assembly in 1994, and lost to the man who now occupies the second highest city position of comptroller, and got to know Congressman Jerry Nadler pretty well. He led a major citizens movement to prevent a developer named Donald Trump from building a massive complex along the Hudson River. Nadler confided in me that Trump had threatened to fund a primary candidate against him earlier, when he was still in the state assembly, if he didn’t let up on him. Nadler, to his credit, never softened his powerful eloquent condemnation of the project, but Trump did get approval and then flipped the rights for a neat profit. That alone, although I fought it, was fairly legitimate, other than the glossy illustration of the project being half as massive as what they really planned. They were getting federal guarantees for the two billion dollar financing, meaning the profit goes to the developer, while if it finished during a downturn, the taxpayers would make up the loss.
I researched this extensively, and these laws and subsidies that had been on the books for decades were perfect examples of what Sanders describes as a rigged system. This upper middle class area of the massive building site qualified for this government guarantee because it was deemed a district of “sub standard housing” sort of slum clearance. I received a long personal response from Ruth Messenger the Borough President explaining how she had failed in her attempt to get the city to buy the land rights for a public park, so had no choice but to allow the development. Ruth is a registered Democrat and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
As this Presidential Election of 2016 unfolds, I see it as historic, equal to those of 1968 and yes, even the one in 1860, that was the last gasp of a country trying to avoid a tragic civil war. The man running on the new Republican ticket wrote for publication: “ … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it ……...” Not only Lincoln, but the writers of our constitution in 1787 were willing to do anything, then agreeing to continue slavery, to have a “united” states of America. Lincoln could not save the Union of states from civil war, one that never actually ended with insurrectionist surrender or a peace treaty. In effect it has been the ongoing central conflict echoing down to this current election a century and a half after the shooting war ended.
The project of Reconstruction, that the vanquished southern states would be occupied by the northern victors, was sustained by Lincoln’s Republican party, It was cut short after only a decade in another historic election of 1876. that shows just how fragile is our electoral college based method of choosing a president. The compromise of choosing a president by congress ushered in the reign of the KKK, and state laws that for vast numbers of blacks, for whom just not having a job could mean a return to slavery under the guise of breach of vagrancy laws. This continued until the 1940s, and was part of the culture of the segregationist deep south, first under the Democratic Party, then the Dixiecrats around mid century, and now in vastly diminished disguised form under elements the Republican party.
The reasons why I advocate voting for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary are based on two elements, the first that Sanders would be preferable to Secretary Clinton as a general election candidates against either of the two potential Republicans, Cruz or Trump, who must be defeated. I don’t think making this case here is necessary, since only months ago, and maybe to this day, the vast majority of members their own party held both of these men in contempt.
The other reason I advocate his nomination is until very recently, I viewed Bernie Sanders very much as his actually being the personification of his comic imitator on SNL, Larry David. I dismissed him as a windup toy with limited phrases “..controlled by Millionaires and Billionaires, We can be like Scandinavian countries. No one should earn less than fifteen bucks an hour.” Listening to the debate last Thursday cleared away my stereotypes, to the point that I now feel that his audacious promise of change just has a chance of prevailing. In this same debate, and several occurrences over the last week or so, such as this one, I have become aware of serious defects in his competitor, that could result in a loss to Trump or Cruz, which I feel would be a disaster, This article I wrote on Cruz’ embrace of Christian Dominionism is only one element of the danger that he presents.
Bernie Sanders and I were born a year apart, one parent born in what is now Poland, the other whose family emigrated from that region a few years before our birth here --1940 for me-1941 for Sanders. We both went to Hebrew School and were Bar Mitzvahed, and based on his current outlook on the world, I would say are secular Jews. If Sanders were to close in, and possibly win the Democratic nomination his religion, or lack thereof, would become an issue, a subject that I will not try to condense here, but link my essay, Bernie Sanders candidacy as a Secular Jew, that goes into this in extensive detail.
If anything, my support of Sanders is not because of our commonalities, but in spite of it. There is evidence that this country is becoming more secular, eschewing traditional religions, which may explain part of Sander’s popularity with the younger group on the forefront of this movement, There is no way to know the depth of this change, and whether it extends to substantive or ceremonial political areas. As an example of this, when President Obama took his first oath of office I was in contact with Mike Newdow who had initiated a law suit to prohibit any expression of reverence to a deity during the inauguration. While the suit was dismissed by the district court, it had an effect. Chief Justice Roberts contacted the President elect and asked him whether he wanted the words, “So Help Me God” included in his oath of office. While Obama said yes, what would a President Elect Bernie Sanders tell the chief justice. Since this phrase is not in the Constitution, it is a personal affirmation in a belief in an all powerful supernatural deity.
I would rather that this could be avoided, but this is integral to one achieving the office of the Presidency, which in some ways still requires, at least on occasion, being the prelate of the church of the United States of America. Bernie Sanders would have a choice. He could fill the roll that he has never had to do before, which is to pretend it doesn’t matter, that saying “God Bless America” after a crisis is just so much “ceremonial deism.” I presume that when congress recites the Pledge, he says “under God” --- or does he just mouth it, or cross his fingers.
One reason I’ve come to the conclusion to support Sanders over Clinton is a response to a debate question based on the premise that the U.S. is paying a disproportionate amount for NATO, which just so happens to have first been raised by Donald Trump.
-------
DANA BASH: And just following up, Senator Sanders, Donald Trump also argues that NATO is unfair economically to the U.S. because America pays a disproportionate share. So how is what you say about NATO and your proposal different than his?
SANDERS: Well, you got to ask -- you got to ask Trump. All I can tell you is, with a huge deficit, with 47 million people living in poverty, with our inner cities collapsing, yeah, I do think countries like Germany and U.K. and France and European countries whose economy, or at least its standard of living and health care and education, they're doing pretty well.
So I would not be embarrassed as president of the United States to say to our European allies, you know what, the United States of America cannot just support your economies. You got to put up your own fair share of the defense burden. Nothing wrong with that.
------
Knowing that if he became the nominee there is a good chance that Trump would be his opponent, nevertheless he agreed with him that there is no reason that the U.S. should spend proportionately more than other wealthy European countries.
Hillary Clinton was more ambiguous. She did suggest that this was a problem that she would try to fix, but when pressed whether she would force the issue against these countries she said no. In her answer there was a hint that Sanders position would weaken NATO which isn’t implied, and there was no way she was going to actually give an “attaboy” by saying of Trumps position, even if said with his characteristic irrational bluster, what Sanders said about Trump’s position, “Nothing wrong with that.”
This is not a show of weakness, but of strength of conviction, that in spite of the antipathy that Sanders feels for both Republican candidates, when Trump brought up something that is meaningful and true, he actually accepts it. To me this showed that his beliefs, his ideals are so deeply held, so thought out, that they are not internalized as sound bites for political gain, but actually with the hopes of implementation.
That Bernie Sanders could separate the proposal to revise our disproportionate spending on NATO could just lead him to the insight that such spending is a sop to the military industrial complex, as it fuels purchases of U.S. Military weapons as part of the deal. Hillary Clinton chose to slant the redistribution of funding of NATO as being the same question as whether we should withdraw, which is a Donald Trump special in his imagined role of imperial leader who can control the world with his own greatness.
I’m going to wrap this up, but must add that a few weeks ago I could have written a pretty long article on why I oppose the nomination of Sanders. It was this debate that turned me around, partly because I now can see that he is preternaturally honest, even if his proposals are unrealistically idealistic, and even sometimes dead wrong. That he could consider the NATO suggestion removed from any political advantage was the tipping point. It shows he separates policy decisions from political expediency, which given the challenges facing a president is a rare and valuable characteristic.
In doing the research for this, I found the following sentence (italics) that I can only assume was a Republican plant in his Wikipedia biography:
---------------------
Sanders studied at Brooklyn College for a year in 1959–60[27] before transferring to the University of Chicago and graduating with a bachelor of arts degree in political science in 1964.[27] He then became a graduate student at the New School for Social Research in New York.[28]
-------------------—
I had recently been researching what is known as “The New School” for a very different reason, that it was, in reality, a transplant of the Frankfurt School, not so much a place but a liberal socialist center in Germany during the Weimar years. It became like an advanced school of critical theory, that was largely made up of ethnic Jews who were escaping the ideological transformation that accompanied the Nazi takeover. This school, and Bernie matriculation, would have been construed as tainted by what is known, especially in right wing circles, as cultural Marxism — which is, among antisemitic conspiracy theorists all interconnected. (see articles in addendum for extensive discussions of this)
I removed the false statement, as there is no record of Sanders ever having attended this school which has been sustained by the administrators of this closely monitored website. I can’t determine how long it had been up before I removed it, hours, days or weeks.
What this does demonstrate is a sample of what Sanders will face if he is the Democratic nominee, which I fear will expose some very ugly ancient hatreds that we may have thought would never again become an issue here.
It’s still an open question whether stirring the pot of antisemitism in all it’s manifestations would be worth the potential gains. Would he be able to moderate his goals to the reality of existing political power to create incremental benefits? I have no doubt that Bernie Sanders would make an attempt to achieve the first steps to the more egalitarian values that he has articulated. The recent debate brought me to the point of believing that he is up to the challenge, and would handle it in a productive way as he faced a hostile congress.
The choices for who will be next President are now limited. No candidate, or human being for that matter, is without faults. For the reasons described here, intellect, integrity and ability to accept ideas from those with different values based on intrinsic merit. We are not choosing our ideal President, but the best out of four. Bernie seems to have a better chance to beat the two Republicans, so it’s which of two.
So, I’m not a cheerleader, but acknowledging his imperfections, given our choices, he’s the best one for this country
---------—
addendum
Extensive article Connection between the Frankfurt School and New School of Social Research
Frankfurt School and Political Correctness- long essay from conservative perspective
Sanders essay on norms of male-female sexuality, Vermont Freeman, 1972
