Bernie Sees Only What He Wants to See. That’s a Problem.

He talks a good game about 'democratic socialism' but has demonstrated affinity for authoritarian regimes.

By
51

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who did not have a great performance in Wednesday’s Democratic debate, nevertheless said something interesting.

“We’re not going to throw out capitalism,” Bloomberg said. “We tried. Other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didn’t work.”

I’m unclear on when “we”—as in the United States—tried communism, but it was still good to hear a Democrat say something nice about capitalism.

Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t like it though.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
51
By
Comments (51)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    RR

    Jonah as we correct labels, we should remember that the Scandinavian countries are no more Socialist than Bernie is a communist.

    Denmark’s prime minister has made that point repeatedly that they’re a capitalist free market.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ken Berger

    A great book on this subject : Debunking Utopia. It goes into greater depth on why the Scandanvian countries are more capitalist than Bernie acknowledges and in numerous ways are far from a paradise. It also shows the many ways people in the US are far better off. The author is not a conservative too!

    Collapse
  3. Tom Buford

    I think Bernie's point that our economic system provides numerous programs that provide what are basically welfare to the wealthy while assigning the lower classes to bootstrapping is well taken. The bottom line for Republicans remains the trickle down theory of Ronald Reagan. It befuddles me that so many would vote for a principle (free enterprise! entrepreneurship!) when the benefits of our so-called "free enterprise" system go to improve the lot of the wealthy. The only rationales that I see is that the wealthy are thereby motivated to work (unproven) or that they threaten to withdraw their personal efforts from the community pool. I don't believe either should receive a positive response.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      RandyMc

      Supply Side Economics is real and it is spectacular.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Mkapnick

    Also, one should point out, that while some (most?), "European countries have more generous welfare states and more progressive taxation than we do", if I am not mistaken they also have broad based consumption taxes that hit tax all citizens regardless of income. Dems are promising the broad based social welfare state of Europe while pretending paying for it will only cost "the rich". This is disingenuous to put it kindly.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Smitty

      To be fair Bernie Isn't. He's talking about a massive tax increase for the middle class to pay for Medicare for all.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Artful Curmudgeon

        Bernie is a nutter, but he is at least introspective enough to acknowledge that his belief in the righteousness of his cause is more important than the math. It's just craven to watch Warren and Pete try to wave the numbers off.

        Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ray Salemi

    I think the conservative press is obsessed with Bernie because Bernie represents the comeuppance of years of minority stonewalling. A comeuppance they thought they had dodged.

    Democrats listened to Obama get pilloried for years, then McConnell stole the Merrick Garland seat, then Trump was elected, then Kavanaugh got put on the court.

    The Democrats are angry, and that anger could result in us all being stuck with Bernie. #Comeuppance.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      RandyMc

      No, we're interested in Bernie because he's seemingly about to be nominated by a major political party and he's a, despite the labels, a communist. Not a "I experimented with ideas in college" kind of communist but a grown "I praised communists and communism in my middle ages" kind of communist. He still espouses communist ideas such as common ownership of goods, industry, property, and the elimination of social and political classes, so, he's still a communist.

      We find him intensely interesting.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ray Salemi

        And there is the comeuppance. We wouldn't have had Bernie winning if Republicans hadn't spent years building the road to Trump.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          RandyMc

          That's the most "I hit you because you made me hit you" I've seen all season. It's nonsense.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Ray Salemi

            Or simple consequences for bad behavior.

            If you’d let the emails go we wouldn’t be here today.

            Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Khal Spencer

    I don't think its fair to start the Iran story with the '79 revolution because that was to a major degree a matter of the chickens coming home to roost. Certainly Mosaddegh was a socialist but that didn't give Uncle Sam and the UK the right to stage a coup and install "our own S.O.B.". '79 was blowback.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Boomer Bob

    I believe that Sanders (and the rest) recognize that free market capitalism and low taxes will best spur GDP growth. However, given that the US is already extremely wealthy, with a highly developed economy, he’s willing to give up some GDP growth in an effort to strengthen the social safety net. Forcing families into bankruptcy (or even ruining credit scores) due to illness is unconscionable given our country’s wealth. Not to mention the societal benefit of removing the FEAR of medical costs/loss of health coverage, etc.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    kate sprouls

    thanks for this. the problem is attention-span, and willingness to vet candidates. most people abdicate that responsibility and therefore never actually know a candidate’s record or beliefs. that, coupled with a general tendency now to ignore/rewriite history suggests he will not be held accountable to these views by voters, or that the implications will even be recognised.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Smitty

      Very thoughtful. Could attention span be the reason that a reality TV star is POTUS? ... There's nothing necessarily wrong with trusting some one else's judgement about a candidate. The problem is finding people who's judgement is trustworthy. That said, the places I trusted in 2016 were so busy throwing mud at one another that I couldn't figure out who was trustworthy. I'm not going to outsource the vetting in 2020 for that very reason.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      My favorite comment by far here - the problem is DEFINITELY attention-span related. The quicker our society moves, the shorter the attention given. The larger part of society is wrapped up in their "2 day shipping, instant attention social media, no need to leave the house cuz I can have it Ubered to me, wikipedia facts world". It's why nobody seems to learn from history - because no one learns anymore. "Why bother? I can just google it." Why bother really THINKING about anything or having a conversation that might stretch your mind?

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    When it comes to economic rhetoric, the two parties will have a conversation in 2020 analogous to two eight year old boys arguing with each other about who is "gay". Neither side will even remotely understand what their terms *actually* mean, and neither side is in a practical position to care even if they *did* know what they were talking about.

    Here's the economic reality of the *actual* difference between D and R winning in 2020: if D wins all branches, then taxes will go up somewhat for higher incomes and down slightly for people living in states with high SALT taxes . If R wins there will be no change at all. That's it. That's the actual difference we will physically feel, in terms of Federal economic policy, from 2020 to 2024.

    The downfall of Conservatism in the USA is like an amputated limb: for a period, the body thinks the limb is still there. People still assume, wrongly, the Conservatives are still offering ideas about the economy, and the Republican party wants to implement those ideas. Both of those assumptions are wrong.

    I'm old enough to remember when Republicans offered their version of a chicken in every pot: that if we give rich people and corporations a tax break, it will make non-rich people richer. It was called "trickle down economics" and whether or not you agree with the argument, *at least it was an argument*.

    Now there is *no* positive argument coming from Conservatives, leaving them with nothing to offer but some script additions for their side's eight year old.

    And the cause of all of this, I submit, is that Conservatives have never gotten on board with the welfare state. And this isn't surprising, since we didn't have it at the time of our founding, and it's a fairly massive change to the character of our country.

    But we've had a welfare state for 80 years, and the idea that it can just be removed is college dorm nonsense. It's time for Conservatives to align their thinking with a realistic starting point: that our country is a mixed economy and it has a social safety net.

    Within that context, Conservatives should strive to make our system--our *actual* modern system--as Conservative as it can be. That sensibility means a focus on the *long term* good of our country as opposed to populist choices which immediately pay off a faction or two. That sensibility means connecting our system--the one we *actually* have--to the principles of the founding of our country, to our Constitution, to our Founder's ideas. Conservatives should stand for law and order, and against corruption. Conservatives should stand for a strong defense and a foreign policy that emphasizes the spread of our ideas of government across the globe. Conservatives are the polar opposite of populism. *American* Conservatives are the polar opposite of nationalism.

    Before the intellectual collapse of Conservatives, the United States had a populist party and a Conservative party, the latter being the minority one. After the collapse we just have two populist parties.

    It doesn't have to be this way. People like picking sides and people like siding with the underdog sometimes. If Conservatives can get over the fact that they will never be the majority, they can leverage the power of good, problem-solving ideas to change the country for the better. If they can deal with the country such as it is and not some 19th century vision of it, those ideas can start flowing again.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Paul Reichardt

      Great points--an actual conservative party in the US is sorely needed (and I'm not even a conservative)--but didn't Buckley and the Goldwaterites drive out the Eisenhowers, Rockerfellers, er, Romneys and everyone else in the GOP who was willing to make peace with the welfare state, like, 50-60 years ago? Then didn't Dole and Goldwater lament that they were now (in the 1990's) the comparative moderates in the Republican party? Now Trump is driving out the faction that drove them out, in the now-generational changing of the guard. There seems to be only one direction for that runaway train.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      C C Writer

      "Trickle-down" was a somewhat contemptuous phrase that distorted the real case for allowing those with money to spend and invest it (where it would create jobs and expand the economic pie) rather than turning it over to the government. A better metaphor would be one of circulating fluid nourishing all the cells in the body, or the rising tide that lifts all boats.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        I never thought of it as a derisive term, but I guess the partisans at the time probably used it as one. Whatever it's called, it amounts to the same thing. And the precept of it is certainly true, but only at certain levels. Absolutism totally kills the idea.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Ray Salemi

    I have trouble finding a politician or political group that does anything but see what they want to see. So, sure, its a fair cop for Bernie but it’s been a fair cop all around forever.

    Collapse
Load More