By Mona Charen
Monday, December 23, 2019
You won’t hear young Democrats deride Bernie Sanders with
the “Okay, Boomer” dig. At 78, he’s actually too old for the cohort, but that’s
not why he won’t get dinged. He’s the most popular Democrat among the under-35
crowd, and judging by recent polling, he’s the second most popular Democrat
overall. Sanders has raised nearly twice as money as the front-runner, Joe
Biden, and seems to have scooped up support from a declining Elizabeth Warren
in the past 60 days. Despite a heart attack that sidelined him for a week, he
marches on, now buoyed by a poll showing that in a head-to-head match-up
against Donald Trump, he would do better than Biden — though within the margin
of error.
Sanders’s appeal, the experts explain, is founded on
“authenticity.” Is he humorless, repetitive, cloying, and rigid? Sure. But
these are signs that he really believes something! He’s not a packaged,
blow-dried (no argument there), insincere pol cooked up in a political
laboratory. He’s the real deal.
Let’s concede that Sanders is sincere, and that he is,
with some small hypocrisies (did you know he was a millionaire?), honest. But
what people actually believe is kind of important, and Bernie Sanders professes
and sells a series of prejudices that do him no credit.
Sanders claims to be a democratic socialist in the
European mold; an admirer of Sweden and Denmark. Yet his career is pockmarked
with praise for regimes considerably to the left of those Scandinavian models.
He has praised Cuba for “making enormous progress in improving the lives of
poor and working people.” In his memoir, he bragged about attending a 1985
parade celebrating the Sandinistas’ seizure of power six years before. “Believe
it or not,” he wrote, “I was the highest ranking American official there.” At
the time, the Sandinista regime had already allied with Cuba and begun a large
military buildup courtesy of the Soviet Union. The Sandinistas, Mr. Sanders had
every reason to know, had censored independent news outlets, nationalized half
of the nation’s industry, forcibly displaced the Misquito Indians, and formed
“neighborhood watch” committees on the Cuban model. Sandinista forces, like
those in East Germany and other communist countries, regularly opened fire on
those attempting to flee the country. None of that appears to have dampened
Sanders’s enthusiasm. The then-mayor of Burlington, Vt., gushed that under his
leadership, “Vermont could set an example to the rest of the nation similar to
the type of example Nicaragua is setting for the rest of Latin America.”
Sanders was impatient with those who found fault with the
Nicaraguan regime:
Is [the Sandinistas’] crime that
they have built new health clinics, schools, and distributed land to the
peasants? Is their crime that they have given equal rights to women? Or that
they are moving forward to wipe out illiteracy? No, their crime in Mr. Reagan’s
eyes and the eyes of corporations and billionaires that determine American
foreign policy is that they have refused to be a puppet and banana republic to
American corporate interests.
Sanders now calls for a revolution in this country, and
we’re all expected to nod knowingly. Of
course he means a peaceful, democratic revolution. It would be outrageous to
suggest anything else. Well, it would not be possible for Bernie Sanders to
usher in a revolution in the U.S., but his sympathy for the real thing is
notable. As Michael Moynihan reported, in the case of the Sandinistas, he was
willing to justify press censorship and even bread lines. The regime’s
crackdown on the largest independent newspaper, La Prensa, “makes sense
to me” Sanders explained, because the country was besieged by
counterrevolutionary forces funded by the United States. As for bread lines,
which soon appeared in Nicaragua as they would decades later in Venezuela,
Sanders scoffed: “It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad
a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In
other countries people don’t line up for food. The rich get the food and the
poor starve to death.”
Bernie Sanders stopped learning about economics and
politics about the age of 17. He still believes that corporate “greed” is
responsible for human poverty and that the world is a zero-sum pie. The more
billionaires there are, the less there is for everyone else. “I don’t think
billionaires should exist,” he told the New York Times. So in the Bernie
ideal world, we non-billionaires would be deprived of Amazon.com, personal
computers, smartphones, fracking (which reduces greenhouse gases), Uber,
Walmart, Star Wars movies, and very possibly our jobs. Millions of children
would be deprived of school scholarships, while the arts, medical research, and
poverty programs would be that much poorer. Billionaires are not heroes, but by
making them boogeymen, Sanders betrays his economic infantilism along with a
large dose of demagoguery.
No comments:
Post a Comment