By Rich Lowry
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
The most substantively outrageous presidential campaign
in American history has some serious chance of success.
Bernie Sanders is leading or near the top of most polls
in the first two Democratic nominating states, Iowa and New Hampshire. He could
plausibly win both, which would instantly transform the race into a desperate
effort to Stop Bernie.
Sanders doesn’t exactly get good press. A lot of the
punditry (understandably) wrote him off when Elizabeth Warren eclipsed him in
the polls a couple of months ago and he had his health scare. Longer profiles
have tended to be fond, while expressing skepticism that Sanders can build out
his coalition. But the same people who have spent years worrying about norms —
by which they usually mean things President Donald Trump says and tweets —
express little alarm about Bernie’s campaign of jaw-dropping radicalism.
If he had his way, he’d fundamentally change the
character of the country. He’d make the United States an outlier in the Western
world, not in terms of its relatively limited government, but its sweeping
activism. A Hellfire missile aimed right at the federal fisc, Sanders would
make Barack Obama’s economic agenda look like the work of a moderate
Republican.
In foreign affairs, he’d bring to the Oval Office a
sympathy for America’s enemies not often heard outside academia or Noam Chomsky
reading groups.
He’s the American Jeremy Corbyn, a socialist true
believer whose fantastical agenda reflects the dictates of dogma. The
difference is that Corbyn effectively promised a return to socialist-imposed
stagnation in Britain, whereas Bernie is inviting America to experience it for
the first time.
His domestic program, according to Brian Riedl of the
Manhattan Institute, would cost nearly $100 trillion over the next decade. It
would more than double federal spending and blow past Western European social
democracies in government profligacy. What would ordinarily be considered
ambitious spending plans — his proposed increased expenditure expansion on
Social Security, infrastructure, housing, education, and paid family leave —
are dwarfed by his gargantuan commitments to his “Medicare for All” proposal,
his federal job guarantee, and his climate plan.
He’d fundamentally transform the relationship of the
individual to the state, which, among other things, would ban people from
owning their own health insurance.
Sanders pitches his health-care proposal as “what every
other major country on Earth is doing,” but no other place is as sweeping or as
generous. “There is not a single country in the world,” health-care analyst
Chris Pope writes, “that offers comprehensive coverage with an unlimited choice
of providers, fully paid for by taxpayers, without insurer gatekeeping, service
rationing or out-of-pocket payments.”
Sanders would drastically increase taxes and still fall
short of funding his program. As Riedl notes, he’d boost the top federal
income-tax rate to 52 percent from 37 percent, and the payroll-tax rate to 27.2
percent from 15.3 percent, as well as impose a 62 percent investment-tax rate
on upper-income taxpayers.
His foreign policy bears the stamp of soft spots for the
Communist regimes in Nicaragua and the Soviet Union. He called the killing of
General Qasem Soleimani an assassination. He condemned the ouster of Bolivia’s
leftist autocrat, Evo Morales, who has called Sanders “brother.” He won’t call
Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro a dictator but slams Benjamin Netanyahu as
a “racist.” He has said his vote to authorize the war in Afghanistan after the
September 11 attacks was a mistake.
Sanders does indeed have his charms. He’s sincere,
consistent, and inarguably himself. He now has a step on frenemy Elizabeth
Warren in the leftist lane in the primaries because he’s not as painfully
calculating as she is. But make no mistake: Sanders is a socialist continuing
his takeover attempt of the Democratic party to forge what he aptly calls a
political revolution. He may be more polite than Trump, but he’s wildly outside
the mainstream and a clear and present danger to the public welfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment