Milton Friedman once observed that the 1928 platform of the Socialist Party of America may have seemed radical at the time, but nearly all of it was eventually absorbed by mainstream parties and became law. That’s also Mr. Sanders’s hope. He wants to drive the Democratic Party debate to the left so it drags Hillary Clinton along with it.LBJ really was someone who would say whatever was necessary to win. As for that 1968 business... we ended up with Nixon... who by today's standards was a big old liberal.
And it may be working. Mrs. Clinton has already disavowed her husband’s trade agenda. She’s proposed a rewrite of the First Amendment to limit political speech, and don’t be surprised if she also embraces expanded entitlements. The difference is that Bernie believes what he says, while Hillary believes whatever seems necessary to win.
The practical political question is whether Mr. Sanders, or some other liberal gadfly, can do well enough to serve as a stalking horse for a stronger candidate against Mrs. Clinton. Recall how Eugene McCarthy drove LBJ out of the 1968 race with a strong performance in the New Hampshire primary. Robert Kennedy soon jumped in as a more electable antiwar candidate.
[NOTE: The last paragraph of this post is rewritten. Originally, it said: "And we ended up with LBJ, who really was someone who would say whatever was necessary to win." That's not a proper account of 1968!]
पोस्ट्स
५४ टिप्पण्या:
I think you mean we ended up with Nixon in '68.
Hilary is a latter day Nixon. But will anything stop this version?
"Liberal." Interesting choice of word for people who are, in the end, profoundly and proudly illiberal. It's too bad the word has become a synonym for "leftist." We should stick with the correct terms.
The First Amendment is the bedrock of our political system. I doubt you could get ten percent of Democrats to vote for it if it were proposed as an amendment to the constitution today.
Someone really does need to come up with something better than "stalking horse."
Thanks, Brando. Last paragraph rewritten.
Milton was not suggesting that it was a good thing.
"It's too bad the word has become a synonym for "leftist." We should stick with the correct terms."
Yes, I am annoyed by the implications of the term "liberal" as used today. They are leftists or statists or fascists depending on who you want to offend.
Yesterday was the Labour Day on my ipad calendar. That was wrong.
But on investigation it is the IWW's claimed day for celebrating International socialism by dynamite bombings. It started in Chicago (where else) when they killed policemen at the Haymarket Square Riots on May 4, 1886.
May 1st has long been celebrated by the Communists as an international labor day.
Exactly how does Bernie Sanders propose to limit the First Amendment? Will this be with another amendment?
"Exactly how does Bernie Sanders propose to limit the First Amendment?"
He can't say.
Yes, I am annoyed by the implications of the term "liberal" as used today. They are leftists or statists or fascists depending on who you want to offend.
Around the turn of the 20th century, the democrats abandoned the term liberal and adopted the term Progressive. A series of progressive presidents and WW II discredited the term Progressive, so the democrats went back to Liberal.
By the turn of the 21st century the Democrats had again ruined the term Liberal, so they went back to Progressive again.
I use the term classical liberal when talking about true liberalism.
I think the Journal's point was that Sanders, aside from being an old white man, is closer to Democrat ideology today. Looking at HuffPo, which I do every day to see what the left is "thinking" (to use the term loosely) I see great enthusiasm for Bernie.
If HRC is not forced to withdraw before the general election, she will have a very hard time moving rightward to woo centrists and those many voters who hate it when pols change positions on issues.
I want to see Sanders treated as the big extremist Ted Cruz is treated as.
Michael K said...
Yes, I am annoyed by the implications of the term "liberal" as used today. They are leftists or statists or fascists depending on who you want to offend.
It is a valuable step towards recovery of your intellectual credibility that you acknowledge that the sole reason to use these terms is to offend.
But he's not an honest socialist. He's already backing off from that characterization of his views, never mind that the characterization is perfectly correct. These days Sanders calls himself a social democrat.
Democrats are so happy to have a primary fig leaf. No one likes a coronation.
But he's not an honest socialist, is he? These days he is backing off the "socialist" characterization, never mind how accurate that characterization might be.
The Republicans have some crazy uncles, but with the Democrats it is all crazy uncles and aunts these days.
I know that "socialism with a human face" is an oxymoron -- a lesson driven home in Prague in '68 -- but "honest socialist"?
Maybe an honest socialist is one who admits that she would let Lavrenti Beria's boys put one in the back of your neck in order to advance the withering away of the state in a workers' paradise.
One of my facebook pals just started posting posts announcing the arrival of Bernie Sanders. She's an old childhood friend, but has gotten so damn liberal in her old age its' scary.
If you're going for Bernie, this country really isn't the place for you.
" the sole reason to use these terms is to offend."
The easily offended frequently contrive to do so. Fascist is a charged word but is the actual correct term for what is going on with Obama and Clinton. If we want to be polite, we call ir "crony capitalism" but it is not capitalism.
Yes, I am annoyed by the implications of the term "liberal" as used today. They are leftists or statists or fascists depending on who you want to offend.
If the fascists get offended to have all the liberals lumped in with them, too bad.
An honest socialist would admit they are championing a system that is responsible for millions of state sponsored deaths.
AReasonableMan said...
Michael K said...
Yes, I am annoyed by the implications of the term "liberal" as used today. They are leftists or statists or fascists depending on who you want to offend.
"It is a valuable step towards recovery of your intellectual credibility that you acknowledge that the sole reason to use these terms is to offend."
Actually, his point is that the truth is offensive to modern day liberals.
Well, old Bernie may be more to the left than Hillary (although I doubt it), but she definitely wins the corruption, megalomania and totalitarian titles.
Wth Hillary! it is about Hillary!
As for policies, well that depends on whichever way the wind blows at the moment.
Achilles in response to AReasonableMan: Actually, his point is that the truth is offensive to modern day liberals.
Yup. I'm always amused by ARM's name. Its as if he chose "reasonable" as a talisman against all the irrational statements he intended to make.
Kinda like the people who feel a need to put "Proud" to be a Democrat stickers on their car.
Nixon is the devil to lefties, yet his policies were a liberal wet dream. They truly do suffer from a mental disorder.
Big Mike says...These days Sanders calls himself a social democrat.
I was a social democrat after Reagan got elected. I felt that we should tax and spend instead of borrow and spend.
The main problem with Mrs. Clinton right now, is she is the only candidate with a dead ambassador on her resume.
That, plus she has way too many women advisers on her twitter team.
Having Sanders (and Warren) in the race could benefit Hillary! because it would make her look comparatively moderate to the low information voters on whom her election would depend.
Nixon was not a generational or progressive liberal. He was a classical liberal tempered by Judeo-Christian morality, an American. He supported, among other things, conservation (not environmentalism) and human welfare (not State welfare).
As for an honest socialist, Sanders would have to acknowledge it is an undemocratic (i.e. minority ideology) system that establishes monopolies by design, which engenders authoritarian and common corruption. It is neither necessary nor desirable, but it could be functional in a closely held community.
I was a social democrat after Reagan got elected. I felt that we should tax and spend instead of borrow and spend.
Reagan was a piker when compared to Obama and the Democrats.
It is a valuable step towards recovery of your intellectual credibility that you acknowledge that the sole reason to use these terms is to offend.
So when Obama calls himself Progressive, who is he trying to offend?
When Pelosi calls herself a liberal, who is she trying to offend?
When I am trying to offend a Liberal or a Progressive, I just call them moonbats.
Bernie is an honorable liberal, but he's utterly clueless on economics.
It's like his mind can't process all the economic gains, the rise of the middle class, the end of Jim Crow, that happened in his lifetime. Freedom & profit motive, Bernie!
AReasonableMan said...
Michael K said...
Yes, I am annoyed by the implications of the term "liberal" as used today. They are leftists or statists or fascists depending on who you want to offend.
It is a valuable step towards recovery of your intellectual credibility that you acknowledge that the sole reason to use these terms is to offend.
Are you offended?
Why? It's what you are.
Rusty said...
AReasonableMan said...
Are you offended?
At childish name-calling? Of course not.
I do feel sad to see intelligent people misuse language in a transparent effort to fit in with the crowd.
You feel sad? Really?
Look up concern troll.
Why does socialism require the suppression of speech?
LibertarianSafetyGuy: "Why does socialism require the suppression of speech?"
Because, as ARMeltdown's posts indicate, there are limits to how far the lefties can twist language in Orwellian knots and subvert the meaning of words so it is inevitable, inevitable, that they (the left) end up suppressing what they cannot control.
Since every premise of lefty political philosophy and belief is based on an utterly upside down understanding of human nature and reality it's always simply a question of time before an empowered left engages in those very acts of language subversion and suppression.
Without fail.
The examples are all about us and growing each day.
Rusty: "Why? It's what you are"
It's self-admittedly what ARMeltdown is.
He has boasted of his time as a volunteer in happy service to Fidel and Fidels band of merry communist oppressors via the Verencemos Brigade.
But don't you dare label ARMeltdown a leftist based on that "thin" evidence alone! LOL
Drago said...
He has boasted of his time as a volunteer in happy service to Fidel and Fidels band of merry communist oppressors via the Verencemos Brigade.
In many cultures Drago would be dismissed as a delusional wanker. Fortunately, here, within the sheltered environs of the Althouse blog, Drago has found a home.
@ARM at 4.54, my friend I'm glad that you also found a home here.
Coupe I much prefer as a taxpayer borrow and spend as the Republicans are inclined to do instead of borrow, tax and spend as the Democrats always do.
An unlikely politician who has no charisma or feel for the people, but manages to consistently win the support of their party's base even after repeatedly selling them out for expediency. No real core principles except power for its own sake, no scruples, and no concern for civil liberties or the rule of law. Ultimately a dangerous person to have in power.
Nixon or Hillary? The parallels are striking.
ARMeltdown: "In many cultures Drago would be dismissed as a delusional wanker."
If you don't want people to think of you as a leftist perhaps you should be a bit more circumspect about volunteering to be a Verencemos Brigade useful idiot for your beloved Fidel.
I'm beginning to understand more fully now why you want to make the use of terms like "leftist, socialist, etc." out of bounds since it clearly strikes too close to home for you comrade.
Nixon was an anti-communist and an American patriot. Other than that, he was essentially a New Deal Democrat. He just thought the Democrats were too stupid to do it right.
""An Honest Socialist"
There's a contradiction of terms if there ever was one.
If you don't want people to think of you as a leftist perhaps you should be a bit more circumspect about volunteering to be a Verencemos Brigade useful idiot for your beloved Fidel.
Really? That explains a lot.
Rusty said...
Really? That explains a lot.
Rusty comes out. As gullible as Drago.
Rusty said...
Really? That explains a lot.
Rusty comes out. As gullible as Drago.
So you're not an admirer of Fidel?
Why brag about something so odious?
Rusty said...
So you're not an admirer of Fidel?
Why brag about something so odious?
I'm not calling you incredibly stupid, but, anyone who believes anything Drago says is incredibly stupid.
I'm not calling you incredibly stupid, but, anyone who believes anything Drago says is incredibly stupid.
That's what I like about you ARM. You can always be counted on for industrial grade irony.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा