Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced his candidacy yesterday in Burlington, Vermont, in a more formal way than his original announcement several weeks ago.
It was an exciting event, with about 5,000 people showing up in the city that Sanders once governed as Mayor in the 1980s.
Sanders was inspiring in his rhetoric, and reminded many of the candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy in 1968, tragically ending in the assassination of RFK in June, 1968.
RFK and McCarthy gave people hope in so many ways, just as Sanders does that today, in a much more complex time, when we have billionaires dictating much of the agenda; when we are engaged in foreign turmoil in many ways worse than even the Vietnam War, as the threat to the homeland is real; and when there is cynicism similar to that in 1968.
Bernie Sanders is highly unlikely to have any real opportunity to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2016, but he can push Hillary Clinton to the left in ways that will benefit her and the nation, and help to lead to Democratic control of the Presidency and the US Senate, and gains in the House of Representatives.
Bernie Sanders can be the conscience of the nation, appealing to our better side and instincts, something sorely needed in a time of many people no longer motivated to get involved in politics. It is likely that he will have many people, who never had an interest in government, suddenly be galvanized into action, which is all to the good for the nation and its future!
In an interview with financial journalist John Harwood on Tuesday, Sanders detailed his grievances with an overabundance of antiperspirants and footwear. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.â€
Nobody parodies the far Left better than far-leftists themselves.
So, Max, you have fault with that comment of Sanders? The fact that he recognizes the kinds of stress that Americans live under, and all that the corporations want to do is offer 23 varieties of spray deodorants or 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry, makes you laugh?
This says legions about you and your set of values, as after all, since you are doing fine, to hell with those who are hungry, etc.
You should be ashamed of yourself, considering the truly outrageous comments made by multiple GOP candidates on every subject imaginable!
Professor,
That’s why I think Max is our right-winger pal Juan. 😉
I tend to agree, Princess Leia,but I will continue to stay on the sidelines until it is absolutely clear that what you say is true, and if I reach that conclusion, with the dialogue becoming disruptive, I will solve the problem, but meanwhile just observing! 🙂
So what candidate do you like Max? Someone from some third party, who has no chance at winning a national election?
Rustbelt: Currently no one in the field peaks my interest.
Here me out. Sanders seems to believe, we could end childhood hunger if only consumers had fewer choices in the free market, there were fewer entrepreneurs offering a wide variety of products, and fewer workers manufacturing goods that people wanted. He implies, correct me if I am wrong, that every business owner’s success robs starving babies of vital nutrition. In Sanders’s world, childhood hunger is the fault of selfish consumers, self-serving entrepreneurs, and rapacious retailers who engage in voluntary transactions in a free-market economy. Really? Is he serious? Unfortunately he is. Let’s have a look at how his recipe of less capitalist consumption, fewer private businesses, stifling of entrepreneurship, and more government control over goods and services would result in happier citizens and fuller stomachs. We need to go no further than to cross the Caribbean. In Venezuela, the shelves are unburdened by “too many†deodorants and shoes and too much soap, milk, or coffee. Food distribution is under military control and the currency of the socialist paradise just collapsed on the black market by 30 percent. There the government imposed price controls in the name of redistributing basic goods to the poor and seized a toilet-paper factory to cure the inevitable shortages. The lines are long, the shelves are empty, the daily battle for subsistence is brutal and people, including babies really do starve. How does Sander think he is going to convince me an independent right down the middle voter? By claiming Venezuela isn’t real socialism and that real socialism has never really been tried? Really? Just saying.
Max, comparing Venezuela to the US is comparing apples to oranges, sorry to say.
Venezuela is not really “socialism”, but communism but called “socialism”, which is not what I nor Bernie Sanders wants.
We want what the Socialist Party of America brought about in the 20th century–minimum wages, maximum hours, labor union recognition, social security, medicare, medicaid, public works programs, consumer protection, environmental protection, higher taxation on the corporations than now (even under Eisenhower), and numerous other programs under Democratic and Republican Presidents.
These were promoted by Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas and others, and they did not believe in or support the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, etc.
No one should go hungry in America for any reason, including veterans, children, single mothers, drug addicts, mentally ill people, as this is a HUMAN RIGHT, and if we do not care about that, we have no right to say we are “good” Christians, Jews, or any other religion, as this is BASIC! Nothing is more important!
But that is not what Sanders said here. He was attacking entrepreneurs, our variety of products and the workers who happen to be employed by those businesses. Who is he, or anyone for that matter, to say what we, as a society needs? Who is he to say we have too much choice of products and services? On the contrary we should have more so the parents of those “hungry” children, (and I would love to look at the stats and what constitutes hunger in this country) have more jobs to choose from. Finally Venezuela is socialist, not communist yet. Remember under communism there is no private property like in socialism. In socialism private property is subordinated to the interest of the collective which is decided by the state. It is a hyper-regulated top down authoritarian regime. Communism goes full blown totalitarian. And yes , today the US is not Venezuela, but why go down that path were in the future we will be comparable?
What I would like to know, and hopefully you can answer this, is that if socialism is so great, why doesn’t the Democrat Party simply come out and say we are socialist? Why don’t they say we are the equivalent of the European Social Democrats? I mean their base clearly is, there policies tend to shift us in that direction, so why just don’t they assume it? Why are they not proud to be social democrats “a la” European? Why do they get offended when anyone says Obama is a socialist or social democrat if you prefer?
Max, the reason why the word Socialism is avoided, is precisely because the American people are ill educated, ignorant, clueless, and have been told by Wall Street and the corporations and the Republicans and conservatives and moderate Democrats, that the word is evil.
It seems to me that Western Europe is not harmed by so called “socialist” programs, and we have many of them, and yet, the Democrats avoid it like a plague because of the propaganda and hysteria that is part of the American psyche due to corporate influence!
Max, we will NEVER come close to Venezuela or Cuba, I assure you! And I would be totally opposed to that occurring!
Oh I see. So in essence according to the Democrat Party, that is the real Social Democrat party in America, and according to intellectual progressives (or should I say socialists) like yourself, the American people are in general nothing but a bunch of ignorant fools. My my, wouldn’t America be a better place if we could just replace Americans for nice obedient Europeans socialists? Tell me Ronald, I am curious, what if the square footage of your home? 850 sq ft?
HAHA, now, Max, don’t become sarcastic and insulting!
I am NOT a Socialist, just recognize that their ideas have had a dramatic, and positive, effect on America in the past century.
Ignorance is widespread, and encouraged by Fox News Channel and conservatives, and it promotes misunderstanding of the true nature of American Socialist ideas, of which we have adopted many.
And what you call European Socialists are not obedient at all, but interestingly, societies such as Scandinavia are much happier people, and their standard of living is just fine, and often, in many ways, better than ours, whether you wish to accept that or not!
I do not have a large home, and waited nearly 20 years of marriage to gain it, but I bet your home is very large and luxurious! LOL hahaha!
These are all the current third parties in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29#Current_U.S._third_parties
So you vote for absolutely none of those on that list?
I second that Princess Leia. Nice to have him back so we can have some daily laughs. 😉
Leave Scandinavia to the Scandinavians. I am sure it’s a wonderful place to visit but I wouldn’t live there. The average square footage of all household dwellings in Finland is 855 sq. ft. and Sweden is 999 sq. ft. The European average for ALL household dwellings is 857 sq. ft. That’s 363 sq. ft. of living space per person. In the meantime, here in the USA the average for ALL households is 2171 sq. ft., that’s 845 sq. ft. of living space per person. But to be fair let’s see how the considered “poor” households do in America. The average poor household dwelling is 1400 sq. ft. , that’s 515 sq. ft. of living space per person. On average, the dwellings of poor Americans are about two-thirds the size of the aver-age U.S. dwelling. Nonetheless, at 1,400 square feet, the dwelling of the average poor American is still substantially larger than the average dwelling in every European nation. Poor American households tend to have somewhat more people on aver-age than do European households; nonetheless, at 515 square feet per person, the average poor American has more living space than the average citizen—not just the poor—in almost every European nation. So would you care to downsize to the average European dwelling space? And since I know progressive say the love facts, here are the sources, now please don’t blame me, the messenger: Kees Dol and Marietta Haffner, Housing Statistics of the European Union 2010, Netherlands Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, September 2010, p. 51,
Table 2.1, at http://abonneren.rijksoverheid.nl/media/dirs/436/data/housing_statistics_in_the_ european_union_2010.pdf (September 7, 2011), and U.S. Department of Energy, 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, Consumption & Expenditures Tables, Summary Statistics, Table US1, Part 2, at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/c&e/pdf/tableus1part2.pdf (September 7, 2011).
Well, Max, I am below that 2171 square foot average, but perfectly satisfied and appreciative that after nearly 20 years of commitment and hard work, that I have had this house for 22 years.
But your numbers per person are incorrect, and makes me think you are NOT a math whiz! LOL hahaha!
I am not the one doing the numbers. At an average of 2.7 people per household dwelling those are the numbers. Here is another link that might clarify it. Oh by the way , I don’t live in a mansion, yet LOL!! http://www.100khouse.com/2008/10/20/so-many-square-feet-so-few-people/
HAHA, I wonder with that .7 person, which part is in the house? LOL hahahaha
So I gather that we might both be part of the great proletariat, LOL Just kidding!
Max
These are the parties listed in the article. I’m just curious if any of them represent your ideology.
Libertarian Party
Green Party of the United States
Constitution Party
Right-wing:
America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America’s Party
Independent American Party
Centrist:
American Populist Party
Citizens Party
Modern Whig Party
Reform Party of the United States of America
Veterans Party of America
Unity Party of America
Left-wing:
Justice Party USA
Working Families Party
Socialist Party USA
Communist Party USA
Socialist Labor Party of America
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Peace and Freedom Party
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Workers Party
Freedom Socialist Party
Socialist Action
Socialist Alternative
Workers World Party
Libertarian:
American Conservative Party
Objectivist Party
Ethnic nationalism:
National Socialist Movement
American Freedom Party
Single issue/protest-oriented:
Prohibition Party
United States Marijuana Party
United States Pirate Party
Rustbelt: None of them do. I am not a party person. And I am not a follower of politicians. I hardly trust any of them, except maybe those who were veterans, and not all of them. Plus one can never agree 100% with anyone nor should it be that way. But if you must know, I would consider myself a Federalist, I am a firm believer in Federalism which was one of the most important creation of the Philadelphia Convention.
Max, you may believe in Federalism, but the Federalists at the Constitutional Convention were supporters of a strong national government and broad interpretation of the Constitution, as promoted by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams as part of the first political party system.
Just as there is misunderstanding of the term “Socialism” and “Socialist”, there is misunderstanding of “Federalism” and the “Federalists” of the 1780s and 1790s!
Just because I believe in Federalism doesn’t mean I adhere to what everything the Federalist Party stood for over 200 yrs. ago. That said I am also for a strong Federal government and I believe so was Hamilton but that doesn’t mean Hamilton and the Federalist back then were for an unlimited and unrestrained Federal government regulating every single aspect of our lives. And If I recall correctly it was Jefferson who was angry about the Judiciary assuming the power to check the Executive and Legislative powers. Jefferson in the end believed more in an unlimited Executive that the Federalist Marshall. Jefferson believed that the Executive had the power to interpret and make the call on whether its actions were constitutional or not. He fumed over Marbury v Madison.
Max: Non-participation only aids the status quo. You want to see change, whether in your local government or your federal government, you have to vote.
Other than specific issues, the most important factor in my decision of who to vote for when I vote for President is the Supreme Court.
A lot of the regulations you hate are for your safety, Max.
I agree with the ladies on what they are saying, particularly on the issue of the Supreme Court being the most important issue when voting for President!
Pragmatic: Maybe, but no one proposes the changes I would prefer. Both parties, the Democrats and Republicans within the beltway take us down the same disastrous path.
Southern: Did I ever say I was against safety regulations? Not at all. But you have to admit we have an over-abundance of all types of regulations. And what is worse some impose penalties and even prison time without any of them having been passed by our representatives but by unelected permanent unaccountable bureaucracy. In other words the bureaucratic administrative state has risen as a 4th branch of government and has in most instances more powers that the constitutionally established branches.
It’s exactly as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are saying. Wall Street has too much power in our political system.
What specific changes would you make?
Max,
You need to read the website http://www.government is good.com to learn truth about the problem with our government.
My cell phone put some spacing in that. The link should be this: http://www.governmentisgood.com
I second what Southern Liberal said. Don’t believe the falsehoods told on Fox News when they gleefully lambast “wasteful” social programs or “ridiculous” regulations.
Professor,
Not all of us are ladies. I’m a man poster.
HAHA, sorry, Rustbelt Democrat! LOL
It sounds to me like the Libertarian Party would be Max’s best match. They promote free markets, limited government. Typical “Tea Party” stuff he’s been spouting.
Government is neither good nor bad per se. What does happen is that sometimes government does good things, sometimes bad things and sometimes, I would say more than acceptable, it does useless things. The problem with some on the left is that any criticism of the bad and useless things government does is seen as an attack on government per se because they seem to believe that government can never do anything bad or useless. Thus the straw man argument that “you want dirty air, water, unfettered markets, no roads or infrastructure and so on and so on”. So when the issue is put in those terms, no discussion is possible. Thus I repeat, government per se is neither good nor evil, but what flesh and blood men do in government can be either good or evil, and since men tend to be imperfect, I believe it is best to limit the power of men who run government. Not that hard to understand. So you see, those who see no evil or anything bad at all with anything the government does, those who believe government is pure and good, are in my humble opinion the real fanatics with whom no discussion is ever possible.
Max said: The straw man argument that “you want dirty air, water, unfettered markets, no roads or infrastructure and so on and so onâ€. So when the issue is put in those terms, no discussion is possible.
Those are issues that are important to most Americans.
The agenda of the anti-government coalition that Max/Juan is a part of is a radical one – they do not simply want to reform and improve government; they want to gut it. They fundamentally oppose the basic roles and functions of government in modern society. They believe the government’s power to tax, its ability to enact health, safety, and environmental regulations, and its attempts to redistribute income to provide more economic security for citizens of the US are all basically illegitimate activities. They fundamentally oppose the modern idea of government and the role it has come to play in advanced societies. They feel deeply uncomfortable with the expansion of government power and programs that took place during the New Deal and the Great Society and are nostalgic about earlier times when government played only a very minor role in society.
The state-hating views of American conservatives like Max/Juan are out of step with other democracies.
This anti-government movement is undemocratic.
Amen to that Leia!
LOL! I think it’s funny how they complain about government, yet, when they need it, they love it. LOL!
WOW! Princess Leia, I could not have said it better than you did here! 🙂
And Rustbelt Democrat, you are so correct at the hypocrisy of the Right. Ted Cruz wanted no aid to New Jersey and Staten Island for Hurricane Sandy, but he wants it for the floods in Texas!
I wish there was a way to say NO to Cruz, but of course, the citizens of Texas are more important than punishing the arrogant, nasty, uncaring, extremist Cruz and his even nuttier pastor father.
We can have sympathy somewhat that Ted Cruz is as crazy and dangerous as he is, due to the upbringing by a dad who should have never been allowed to leave Cuba, as he is a hate mongering lunatic!
Rather interesting how Max/Juan only pops out of the woodwork whenever election campaigns start up.