Thursday, August 13, 2015
Even The Right's Resident Troglodytes Can't Process Bernie's Rise
Thousands turned out to feel the Bern at LA Memorial Sports Arena Aug. 10
You have to forgive some of those who opine on politics, as well as on global warming in the pages of The Wall Street Journal. Though they often appear to have some educational or institutional creds, once one applies the dissection tool of critical scrutiny a lot of it vanishes under the huff and puff of PR. Such is the case with a recent WSJ piece 'The Democrats' Socialist Surge' by "Manhattan Institute" lightweight, Jason L. Riley.
Like his WSJ buddy Gerald Seib, Riley clearly knows very little and what he does know is skewed wrong by his ideology. That is the lens through which he judges reality so no surprise the reality comes out twisted or debauched.
We who've been following Bernie Sanders are aware of the huge crowds he's been amassing - even despite interruptions (as in Seattle) by nuisance protesters from 'Black Lives Matter', who really need to adjust their own reality goggles and keep their powder dry for the 17 Repukes. As opposed to making their own ideological, economic allies targets of "friendly fire". Note they couldn't get 1 inch past Hillary's Secret Service detachment, which shows me they are only interested in disrupting soft, friendly targets. As liberal talk radio host Bill Press put it on Chris Hayes 'All In' two nights ago, they are "making the perfect the enemy of the good." Adding:
"You target the people who disagree with you, not your friends." Bingo!
Alicia Garza, co-creator of BLM, promised that "all candidates will be disrupted", but I will believe it when I see it. Now, Ms. Garza, sic your troops after Donald Trump, Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee! Cease with the friendly fire tactics which will only backfire on your group.
Moving on, we saw over the weekend, 28,000 turned out to see and hear Bernie in Portland, OR, while 27,500 came out to see him in LA on Monday at the Memorial Sports Arena. And then, on Wednesday, it was announced on MSNBC and CBS that the Bern had broken through in New Hampshire and he was now ahead of Hillary by 44 percent to 37 percent. (Hillary 'Third Way' supporters quoted in the WSJ suggested she "had no plans to attack Bernie because eventually the Lefties will come around to support her". Well, maybe, maybe not.)
All this has the right wing media troglodytes so worried they're pissing in their pants, or on the verge of acquiring the new DSM disorder, psychosis risk syndrome - a pernicious display of paranoia that can lead to paranoid schizophrenia if untreated. What is their paranoia? Well that that the WHOLE Dem party has now gone "socialist".
Gimme a break already!
Riley in his forlorn WSJ column is especially guilty of this bollocks as when he goes through a whole mini-history of socialism (most inapplicable to democratic socialism) then concludes Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't able to answer the recent question put to her by MSNBC's squawker Chris Matthews ('What's the difference between a Democrat and Socialist?') because:
"These days it's largely a distinction without a difference."
In other words this moron commits the fallacy of composition on a mega -scale (or moron scale) designating the minority Left base of the party as being its entire aggregate - totally leaving out the Third Way Neoliberals, as well as Neocons who easily comprise 75% of the party.
By saying this is a "distinction without difference" Riley is claiming the Democratic Party - so far to the Right now most of us from the 60s don't recognize it - is really without Neoliberal capitalists, or Neocon warmongers, But IF that were so, how explain all the bailouts of the banks, bankers as well as GM, when a REAL socialist gov't would have nationalized them all? Also, how explain an immense defense budget - still greater than the next 22 nations combined - when a REAL socialist party (or Democratic Socialist ) would have halved it by now?
And, not to be too obvious - but NO socialist worth his salt (or party) would ever have tolerated a "debt commission" and considered a chained CPI to cut and gut Social Security!
Riley has no genuine reasons only paranoid suspicions for conflating Democrats and Socialists.. For example, because the Dems "allowed Sanders to caucus with them" then the Democrats must all be the same party as Sanders, Socialist. This is the kind of reasoning I'd expect from a half- bright three year old, when any sensible person would grasp the Dems allowed it out of needing greater voting numbers vis-a-vis the Senate Repukes.
Oh, oh, I forgot "he also was granted seniority status to push a progressive agenda". And what, pray tell, was this agenda?
Riley then ticks off Sanders' pushing for single payer healthcare (which would actually SAVE us over $500 m the next ten years compared to Obamacare), and pushing for a 50 percent reduction in military spending. That last, he appears to forget, was actually a transfer of spending - from buying new military toys and hardware to increasing VA benefits for troops. A push for which Sanders now has many thousands of grateful vets behind him.
Lastly, Riley whines that Sanders' agenda would only appeal to "upper middle class professionals obsessed with income inequality". But I have news for him, all intelligent people are concerned with that, and if he isn't he's an even bigger moron than I first thought.
His quotation from the book 'The Right Nation' that:
"In America socialists cast their seed on barren ground"
Misses the larger point that when polls are taken regarding which PROGRAMS Americans want, as opposed to which political philosophy, they invariably pick the more "socialist" choices - showing at heart that Americans ARE socialists - at least democratic socialists!
Thus, they DO want Social Security there for them, by nearly 70-30 percent majorities.
They also want Medicare to be their healthcare, as opposed to private insurance or even Obamacare
And they favor food stamps and Medicaid for the poorer among us.
Having supported these "socialist" programs in polls, they just need to be reminded that ideally their political philosophies ought to be in synch with their program choices! And conversely, voting for conservatives undermines their program preferences.
Again, political education can be as important as historical education.