Written for Patrick Andendall by author Jason Newell.
“[After Clinton’s introduction] Introducing second, from the progressive corner, weighing 200 pounds—he hails from Brooklyn, New York, and was rated, by many, as the best vote-for-vote politician in Washington, with one no-vote on Iraq, a prediction of the Great Recession 10 years before it occurred, and a 100% approval rating from the Human Rights Campaign, the former Mayor of Burlington, Member of the House, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, and current United States Senator from Vermont, Bernie ‘I Support the Middle Class’ Saaaannnnnddderrrrrrrrrrrs!”
Bernie Sanders has just stepped into the boxing match known as the Democratic primary— bouncing up and down, punching his gloves together, with his head held high. Bernie is ready for a knock-down, drag-out fight against the establishment. Waiting in the other corner is a political titan, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary has done it all: she was First Lady, a United States Senator, ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008, and most recently, was handpicked by Barack Obama to serve as the Secretary of State. And moreover, Hillary’s political positions aren’t that far off from what Bernie is propagating. However, there lies one key difference: Bernie’s political foresight makes Nostradamus look like a Medieval street prophet.
How so? Bernie has the upper hand on Hillary with regard to a few hot specific issues: the War in Iraq, the financial crisis, and pro-LGBT positions. Let’s start with the War in Iraq, a conflict that Bernie opposed from the outset.
“I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country?”
Bernie didn’t authorize the Bush Administration to conduct operations in Iraq. Instead of pandering to the financial elite by supporting false pretexts for war, conjured up by Saruman Cheney (an incredibly nerdy LOTR reference, I know), Bernie had the mental wherewithal to comprehend the difficulties of controlling a post-invasion Iraq, whereby he predicted the creation of a power vacuum that would foster an environment of extremism.
Years later, Iraq has become a breeding ground for radical jihadists seeking to construct a Muslim caliphate. Thanks to George “Dumbya” Bush, and his pro-defense inner circle, the Middle East has reached a dangerous crossroads, one between moderate Muslims, and those who seek to distort the Koran to fit their morally backwards religious objectives, such as, oh, you know, banning the breeding of pigeons, as they fly over head and expose their genitals to unsuspecting civilians. Apparently, Middle Eastern pigeons are as well-endowed as Ron Jeremy, or, breeders supplement their diets with Cialis…
But back to my point, Bernie’s astute argument also sheds light on America’s future role in post-invasion Iraq—the underlying inferences being: 1) how long will conflict last, 2) the level of engagement required, and 3) the role to which the US will play in dictating domestic Iraqi affairs. Factors the Bush Administration, Republicans, and duped Democrats refused or naively disregarded. Bernie’s cautious calculations and tamed foreign policy objectives demonstrate his lucid political foresight.
The democratic socialist, from the great state of Ben and Jerry’s, also predicted the 2008 Financial Crisis in a Congressional hearing on financial bailouts, ten years before the financial collapse. In sum, Bernie Sanders calls out trickle-down economics, wealth inequality, hedging, Federal Reserve bailouts, economic cronyism, and has hinted at these policies culminating in an unsustainable system that would contribute to financial turmoil. Bear in mind, the economy at the tail-end of the previous century was booming, so Bernie’s statement may have fallen upon deaf ears. Nonetheless, Bernie’s refusal to mollycoddle the financial elite was a political standpoint that has become mainstream ever since the financial collapse. And while one can’t tie Hillary to these policies—as she was the First Lady at the time—her husband, with the benefit of hindsight, was perhaps a bit too comfortable with the now faded icon, Alan Greenspan, who created an economic paradigm that justified massive wealth accumulation by financial giants, shady derivatives schemes, and white collar gambling on Wall Street. The untouchable Greenspan Ayn Randian unfettered capitalism dream that was fated once again to lead to economic Armageddon. Once again, Bernie’s political foresight brings credibility to his consistent moral convictions.
Incidentally, Bernie, in 1979, wrote about the potential issues associated with the privatization of television networks. One excerpt that stands out is his reference to the TV industry’s objective—due to it being mostly owned by private corporations—of intentionally stupefying American television viewers in order to drive advertising profits. Essentially, according to Bernie, television content that lacked intellectual subject matter would become commonplace: a prediction that has panned out. I mean, have you watched Fox News lately? Viewers of this jingoistic propaganda machine are less informed than individuals who don’t watch news at all. Bernie’s prognosticating is surely eerie, especially when one considers that 90% of the American media is owned by 6 corporations.
In my opinion, Bernie’s unwavering backing of LGBT rights draws another distinction between the two Democratic frontrunners. Remember, Hillary Clinton, in the 2008 Democratic Primary, ran on an anti-gay marriage platform; a possible consequence of public sentiment regarding same-sex marriage not hovering at, or over 50%–a position made out of political convenience, rather than doing what’s right. My criticism isn’t only confined to Hillary Clinton: Barack Obama played the same “my opinion evolved” card, acting as if they never favored same-sex marriage in the first place. And while a presidential candidate’s opinions typically reflect party preferences, Democrats, as a coalition, have supported same-sex marriage by a majority for years—so why the wait?
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders was in favor of same-sex marriage when it was largely unpopular: he voted against numerous anti-gay marriage measures and received a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign—he never had to “evolve” his opinion. Bernie unquestionably recognized marriage as a right which should be granted to all American citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. Public opinion is peripheral to Bernie’s support of human rights: understanding the immorality of legally suppressive measures, even if supported by a majority, is key to becoming a morally upstanding leader. Bernie’s acceptance of same-sex marriage is, to some degree, analogous to Civil Rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, as they were able to differentiate between just and unjust laws regardless of restrictive social mores.
Political foresight is a skill limited to a few intuitive politicians—Bernie being one of them. His entrance into the race, whether or not he dethrones Clinton, forces Clinton to accept more left-leaning positions, especially in regards to foreign policy, financial markets, and civil rights. Moreover, Clinton substantially benefits from a strong primary challenge, as it prepares her for the grueling and hyper-scrutinized general election. Thankfully, the Democratic nominee will be running against circus clowns, who tend to have the mental capacity of domestic Turkeys—an animal known to get frightened and, in a state of panic, continuously run into a corner until a Turkey mountain is created, which suffocates those stuck on the bottom.
In the end, Bernie’s heightened political foresight and adherence to moral convictions can set the standard for what Americans expect from their elected leaders: an ability to think critically, and a strong, “stable,” moral character.
For more content, please visit www.stupidpartymathvmyth.com
.png?1434403205)
