Bern down the establishment
Photo illustration courtesy of Katrina van Warmerdam
April 8, 2016
In a presidential primary that has been marred by infighting and high-profile mudslinging, few candidates have managed to hold themselves above petty squabbling. The comparatively tepid campaign and boisterous agreement coming from the Democrats has served as a counterpoint to the Republican debacle. One contender especially has managed to tread above much of the mire on the issues. The real ones facing the American people, rather than the interpersonal issues of various combative egos.
Senator Bernie Sanders has stayed on message, even if you disagree with the content of that message. His refusal to stray into middle school caliber name calling is exceptional. But how should it be that the person who declines every opportunity for personal attacks upon their opponent is the exception, rather than the rule?
We have come to an age of politics unmatched in divisiveness since the secessionist movement in the pre-civil war legislature.
As such, the man best suited to mend the divide is Sanders.
While dissenters may harp upon his far left policies as a deal breaker for cooperation, it is his approach to politics itself that redeems him.Sanders will not attack his opponent of the same party, and has been carefully policy oriented in his criticism of GOP hopefuls.
The individual best suited to mend the divide is someone who will not take personal jabs at the other party, treating them like an enemy. That is the attitude that has gotten us into this obstructionist contest to see who can be the most stubborn.
We need a president who understands that politics is a balancing act, an effort of ongoing compromise. Like not getting divorced until the kids are out of college.
Hillary Clinton’s stump speech, exhorting the need to keep the republicans out of office, is untenable and only serves to exacerbate the divide. We need an individual who is able to run a campaign on a platform that does not hinge on, “we aren’t the other side, vote for us because they are bad.”
Across the board, those running for president have claimed that there is something wrong with America. —That there is some core fault in our nation, and their plan is the one that can miraculously fix everything that has been perpetrated upon this nation by the opposing faction. They are right, to a degree. It is not the fault of any one individual, corporation or party, at whom a great many indignant fingers may so conveniently be pointed, but in the mirror. We, as the American people have cut off our nose to spite our face, and the nation and its people are starting to feel the pain of that division.
America needs someone who can heal the divide of our people, not through appeasement, but by genuinely moving past the squabbles to work on our shared goal, a better United States.
While the process to achieve that goal will be up for contentious debate, one thing is unanimously clear to voters on both sides. That is that the status quo cannot stand, that we need change, that we need a dreamer, we need a future to believe in.
Aristotle Bean • Apr 10, 2016 at 1:36 pm
After you read my response, I would like you to explain how you would compromise.
One of the most important differences between Democrats and Republicans is how each regards the role and the size of the government. Clearly, Bernie Sanders is an advocate of the biggest government possible — no one disputes this.
Democrats believe that the State should be the most powerful force in society. Among many other things, the Government should be in control of educating every child, should provide all health care, and should regulate – often to the minutest detail – how businesses conduct their business. In Germany, for instance, the Government legislates the time of day stores have to close. In short, Democrats believe there should be no power that competes with government.. Not parents, not businesses, not private schools, not religious institutions, not even the individual human conscience.
Republicans (usually conservatives), on the other hand, believe that government’s role in society should be limited to absolute necessities. Such as national defense, and being the resource of last resort: to help citizens who cannot be helped by family, by community, or by religious and secular charities.
Republicans understand that as Government grows in size and power, the following will inevitably happen:
1. There will be ever-increasing amounts of corruption. Power and money breed corruption. People in government will sell government influence for personal and political gain, and people outside of government will seek to buy influence and favors. In Africa and Latin America, government corruption has been the single biggest factor in holding nations back from progressing.
2. Individual liberty will decline. With few exceptions, such as an unrestricted right to abortion, individual liberty is less important to Democrats than to Republicans. This is neither an opinion nor a criticism. It is simple logic: The more control government has over people’s lives, the less liberty people have.
3. Countries with ever-expanding governments will either reduce the size of their government, or eventually collapse economically. Every welfare state ultimately becomes a Ponzi scheme, relying on new payers to pay previous payers, And when it runs out of new payers, the scheme collapses. All of the welfare states of the world – including the wealthy European countries – are already experiencing this problem, to varying degrees.
4. In order to pay for an ever-expanding government, taxes are constantly increased. But at a given level of taxation, the society’s wealth producers will either stop working, work less, hire fewer people, or move their business out of the state or out of the country.
5. Big government produces big deficits and ever increasing and ultimately unsustainable debt. This too is only logical.. The more money the State hands out. The more money people will demand from the state. No recipient of free money has ever said, “Thank you, I have enough.” Unless big governments get smaller, they will all eventually collapse under own weight. With terrible consequences, socially as well as economically.
6. The bigger the government , the greater the opportunities for doing great evil. The 20th century was the most murderous century in recorded history. And who did all this killing? Big governments. Evil individuals without power can only do so much harm. But when evil individuals take control of big government, the amount of harm they can do is essentially unlimited.
Republicans fear Big government. Democrats fear Big Business.
But Coca-Cola cannot break into your house or confiscate your wealth. Only Big Government can do that. As irresponsible as any business has ever been, it is only Big Government that can build concentration camps and commit genocide.
7. Big Government eats away at the moral character of a nation. People no longer take care of other people. After all, they know the government will do that. That’s why Americans give far more of their money and volunteer far more of their time to charity than do Europeans at the same economic level.
Without the belief in an ever-expanding government, there is no Democratic Party. Without a belief in limited government, there is no Republican Party and there is no prosperity, individual liberty, and less invention. Less of everything really.
So, Editorial Board, please explain to us how Bernie Sanders, or anyone, can — or should — compromise on this fundamental difference in principle?
Thank you for “listening” (so to speak).