Sanders and Biden and the left: together again
Prior to his election in 2008, Obama concealed how far to the left he was, and the American people bought it. He had a calm and soothing voice and demeanor, as well as what people thought of as a great intellect. In 2012, he managed to pull it off again, and it was after that election in particular that he felt free to enact his more radical policies without the fear of having to answer to the American electorate once more.
Since Obama left office, the Democratic Party has become more openly radical in word and deed. But faced with the 2020 election, the Democratic powers-that-be (and that still includes Obama) decided that Bernie Sanders – who was beginning to look like he was going to win the primaries and become the party’s nominee – was too radical a face to win the general election. And so they pressured all the candidates except Biden to drop out and unite behind Joe as the blander candidate, the one who wouldn’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.
Biden also had the advantage of being vacant enough that others would be able to control him once he took office. One of those people might indeed be Sanders, who probably saw the benefits of working behind the scenes to effect leftist policies he couldn’t put in place while trying up-front. Now Sanders is campaigning for Joe and saying this sort of thing:
The day after Joe is elected president — we’re going to be mobilizing people all across this country to make sure that he becomes the most progressive president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And even that is an understatement, a deception designed to compare Biden and the policies that Democrats will instigate under him to a leader of the past, FDR. Many Americans still don’t understand the word “progressive,” either, which is a screen as well. Biden – or those behind him, who will “make sure” that he becomes what they want – is on track to have by far the most leftist administration America has ever known.
They have tried to hide that, but only intermittently, because they must also reassure their sizeable left flank that they will satisfy their needs and wishes. And what’s been happening now in our cities has revealed their goals to more people than ever realized it before. Democrats can keep shouting that it’s all Trump’s fault, and that will fool some of the people. But the question is the same as always in politics: how many of the people can you fool, how much of the time, and what might they be able to do about it?
With Biden as the new FDR, can we expect Executive Order 9066.1 to ethnically cleanse all those inconvenient Asian applicants to Harvard? Maybe the day after Joe is inaugurated?
“…unite behind Joe as the blander candidate.”
Gone are the days when my brain was young and gay
Gone are corn pops of the swimming pools away
Gone to the sniff the scent of all young girls thatI know
I hear those Bland Lives Voices calling, “Old Bland Joe”
I’m thinking I’m stinking
But my brain’s imploding slow
I hear those Bland Lives Voices calling, “Old Bland Joe
I’m coming home (I’m coming home)
Oh-oh my head is bending low
I hear those gentle voices calling, “Old Bland Joe”
Old Bland Joe, Old Bland Joe, Old Bland Joe
Why do I speak when I forget just where I am?
Why do I shout I NEED SOME FRESH DEPENDS!
Grieving for a brain now departed long ago
I hear their Bland Lives Voices calling, “Old Bland Joe”
Where are all those I molested happy and free?
The children so dear that I bounced upon my knee?
Gone to the sewer where my brain has long’d to go
I hear those Bland Lives Voices calling, “Old Bland Joe Joe”
Harris was really the choice of the faceless functionaries of the billionaires who run the Democrat party. There are enormous fortunes behind her but, as was once said about advertising dog food, the money was not enough to get the dogs to eat the food. Now, Clyburn was able to maneuver the most corrupt congressional district to push Biden as the choice of blacks. I’m sure plenty of “walking around money” was involved. Harris is now to be slipped in under the cover of poor old Joe. I doubt he knows from one day to the next who she is. Like von Hindenburg in 1932, his role is to ease the path for the unelectable tyrant.
Biden as the new FDR, gimme a break. FDR, despite his many flaws, was the right person at the right time. Demented Joe is demented. No there there.
“The day after Joe is elected president — we’re going to be mobilizing people all across this country to make sure that he becomes the most progressive president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.” Bernie Sanders
What Sanders is too ideologically blind to see is that inauguration day for Joe Biden will be seen by future historians as the actual start to the second American Civil War. And if the military backs the ‘lawfully elected’ Biden administration and crushes liberty, it will be the start of 1984 coming to fruition.
Arguably, fools are more deadly than evil because they enable evil’s ambitions.
None of us will probably live to see it, but my gut tells me that one day the verdict of history vis a vis Barak Obama will be that he was a sociopath.
The left was so confident Hillary was going to win they became brazen about their intentions to move the country left.
That explains their insane rage when she lost. It’s been a four year tantrum. They’re trying to stuff their intentions back into the bottle for the next few months, while trotting Joe onto his front lawn, so we can all see how reasonable he looks.
Man, he DOESN’T look like a socialist!
NorthOfTheOneOhOne on August 31, 2020 at 11:19 pm said:
“None of us will probably live to see it, but my gut tells me that one day the verdict of history vis a vis Barak Obama will be that he was a sociopath.”
I disagree, I think that he will be seen as a Narcissist. His preening self indolent behavior was apparent from the beginning. He resigned from the Senate so he wouldn’t have to grapple with the financial crisis. Now he can’t even finish his book like before. He let many of his underlings to the hard work. With his permission and support for sure. Pelosi and Reid pulled off Obamacare. Holder and Clinton did Fast and Furious. Lynch and Holder politicized the Justice department. Hillary had the Arab Spring with Benghazi and Valerie Jarrett drove making the Iran deal happen.
Obama was a crooked Chicago pol that used his black skin as a shield. America elected him as our vanity project to show just how virtuous we are.
We are paying the price.
The day after Joe is elected president — we’re going to be mobilizing people all across this country to make sure that he becomes the most progressive president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The fellow who blogs under the handle ‘Anti-Gnostic’ notes that the signature feature of leftoid politics is that it’s promoters evince no idea of what sort of end state would satisfy them.
The Roosevelt Administration was notable for instituting a menu of programs (some more salutary than others) to address acute economic dysfunction and some common problems of relying on market mechanisms exclusively. The Administration corresponded roughly to Europe’s ‘social-liberal’ parties rather than the continental social-democratic parties inasmuch as there was no discrete body of social thought animating the Democratic Party at the time. Neither was the Roosevelt Administration the outgrowth of the trade unions or agricultural co-operatives, as was the case with the anglospheric social democratic parties.
The Roosevelt Administration made some good decisions and bad decisions considered as policy. A subset of the good decisions were dubious for other reasons, however, given the formal and customary division of labor between the central government and the provincial government in this country. No doubt the country had real and severe problems in 1933. We may yet face them if the autonomous decline in planned expenditure conjoined to enormous public sector borrowing induces a financial crisis. But we don’t face them now. Latter-day ‘progressives’ do not address authentic deficiencies in the quality of life for any legitimate sector of the population. The whole thrust of their program is to injure and humiliate defined social enemies.
but my gut tells me that one day the verdict of history vis a vis Barak Obama will be that he was a sociopath.
I doubt that, but they may conclude there was never much there there (except vanity and petty spite). It may take a while. Woodrow Wilson was still getting good press when I was in junior high school, > 50 years after he’d shuffled off into retirement.
I actually think Obama goes beyond narcissism, all the way to being a solipsist. If you want to see a literary foretelling of The One, read the Pointland chapter of Flatland.
The key with all on the left is their relative uniformity. Sure, there are Stalinists and Trotskyites, followers of Foucault or of Gramsci, but it’s far more one-note than the right has historically been. I will grant that there was a period (90s and especially 00s) when many tried to paper this over. The worst offender was NR under Lowry, where they made up a fictional “fusionist” unity. But it all fell apart, as we have seen.
When I first got involved, reading NR in the 60s, it was a free-for-all. And I loved that. I discovered which side I was on (extreme Trad), but also learnt to see the point of the others. The success of the Reagan years actually hurt that – too many phonies trying to latch on – but the real harm came, as I say, in the Bush II years. (And I don’t hate GBW at all. Nor do I make the mistake of holding against the originial neocons the errors of – and redefinition by – their successors.)
One thing we lack is that Kendall never lived to finish his Sages of Conservatism. Much as I loved Kirk, I could see he landed some serious blows.
But the left has nothing like that. Even Orwell doesn’t have the same independence of thought as, say, Evelyn Waugh.
Ymar is not fooled. Which means it is over for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMe2hou_sgE
The 12 Steps of AA
AA’s 12-Step approach follows a set of guidelines designed as “steps” toward recovery, and members can revisit these steps at any time. The 12 Steps are:9
We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Americans need this repentance because they are like alcoholics. They think their country was great, nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Then 2020 happened.
The worst offender was NR under Lowry, where they made up a fictional “fusionist” unity. But it all fell apart, as we have seen.
Fusionism was a set of conceptions assembled by Frank Meyer before Richard Lowry was born. What was notable about Lowry’s tenure was his inability after 2001 or thereabouts to recruit any engaging contributors. The ones he had he gradually lost due to life-cycle attrition. You still see an occasional piece by Thos. Sowell or Victor Davis Hanson and Andrew McCarthy is informative. The rest of them are meh.
Lowry himself comes off as a weak and other-directed man whose actual sensibilities resemble those of his neighbors in Manhattan and Fairfield County, Ct. Consider that John Derbyshire in 2006 placed in the New English Review an antic and vitriolic denunciation of a book written by one of the magazines staff editors and did so without consequence; in 2012, he writes a an article for Taki‘s mildly disrespectful of blacks and he’s immediately cut from the masthead. Well, it’s status-lowering in a bourgeois suburban milieu to be disrespectful of blacks; contempt for Catholic critics of abortion is just bog standard in that crew. He allowed his managing editor to run Mark Steyn off the premises for no defensible reason and also to sneak articles advocating homosexual pseudogamy onto the publication’s online edition. Then in 2015 he takes the publication down the NeverTrump rabbit hole.
Lowry’s not a fanatic or a shill of liberal billionaires, so he’s made piecemeal adjustments over the last several years. The most implacable NeverTrump types have departed one-by-one and a couple of others (Andrew McCarthy and Charles CW Cooke) have been influenced by the course of events. However, most of their staff editors are people inclined to be antagonistic to the President. That includes Ramesh Ponnuru, Nicholas Frankovich, Jay Nordlinger, and Kevin Williamson.
The problem with National Review is one you occasionally see in business corporations: it’s components would be more valuable if they were sold off to other concerns. McCarthy could write for The American Spectator or PJ Media, Cooke could write for Reason, Dougherty could land a job teaching English to adolescents and write on the side, and the rest of them can defect to chess or slave-trading.
An interesting book about the FDRs “New Deal” is “The Forgotten Man,” by Amity Schlaes.
FDRs legacy has been prepared and written by progressive historians, so one needs to keep that in mind.
When FDR ran against Hoover (whose policies – the Smoot Hawley Tariff, raising income taxes during a recession thus turning it into a depression), he railed against Hoover’s policies.
Recall that the recession first hit in Oct 1929 and FDR took office in very early 1933.
So EVERYBODY had three years to observe the consequences of Hoover’s policies; and his policies turned what should have been a recession into a depression.
FDR ran for prez in 1932; his campaign stressed how he would reverse Hoover’s disastrous policies.
When he took office, he literally doubled down on Hoover’s policies, thus extending the depression until the USA entered WWII in Dec 1941.
Why did he double down on Hoover’s policies?
Well look at his economic advisors – all hard core leftists. In fact, Mussolini himself praised FDRs New Deal as did the official newpaper of Hitler’s Nazi party.
FDRs economic polices were straight out of the socialist agenda, with predictable consequences. He hated business and believed the govt. should literally take over the economy. And his New Deal attempted to do just that.
FDR , like most politicians, never held a real job (outside of govt) in his entire life (jeez, let’s all guess; which recent prez shared this attribute?) .
His families wealth and social standing gave him entrance into Harvard and elitist power circles of govt. .. He was literally clueless about how ordinary folks lived and what motivated them. He hated business, and did not trust businessman.
Recall, that the “old money” elites of NY, Boston, etc. thought “business” was a lower class endeavor , and wealth should be reserved for only those who were members of the proper “social standing; (the social elites, the Ivy League types, the “old money,” etc.). This is one reason , if not the primary reason, they held the “new” wealthy (i.e., those who originally came from the lower or ordinary rungs of society) in such contempt.
How clueless was FDR?
He actually had one of his federal agencies sue a butcher shop. Among the charges brought, the govt. asserted, was that it was ILLEGAL for an individual purchaser who wished to buy a chicken, to place his/her had in the chicken cage and actually select a chicken.
The law required, so said the govt, that the chicken buyer could ONLY stick his hand in the cage and HAD to choose the first chicken that wandered over to him.
This case went , believe it or not, all the way to the US Supreme Court, where the govt / FDR lost.
The New Deal created many millions of govt jobs – which was good. Of course, the New Deal policies and those of Hoover’s destroyed many more millions of jobs.
It’s sort of like having the guy that beats the sh^t out of you drive you to the hospital and then claim he is a good Samaritan.
Sure.
Once WWII began, FDR was forced to mobilize that which he most despised; capitalist American business.
Obama as pres most certainly wished to follow in FDRs footsteps, and the commentators here on Neo’s blog more than likely were not big fans of Obama nor of his leftist policies.
Well, FDR, prior to WWII, makes Obama look like a Goldwater Republican.
An interesting book about the FDRs “New Deal” is “The Forgotten Man,” by Amity Schlaes.
Look at her bibliography. She hardly consulted any literature in economics. IIRC, she didn’t consult statistical data sets either or offer cross-national comparisons of economic performance.
For all those that wondered how you all got here in America 2020… listen to Yuri Bezmenov.
I linked him a decade or so ago, but people weren’t paying attention. Are they paying attention now in 2020 as Antifa kills them? Maybe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMe2hou_sgE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA7w4x5xTbc
The Call of Duty gamer generation is waking up via that game trailer featuring Yuri Bezmenov. What are the excuses of the Old Guard now?
No matter what one thinks of FDR, he did NOT hate the country nor did he despise the electorate that did not vote for him.
The current crop of arrogant thugs in the Democratic party, a party that neither FDR nor HST nor Adlai Stevenson nor JFK nor RFK nor LBJ nor Hubert Humphrey nor Scoop Jackson nor Daniel Patrick Moynihan nor Walter Mondale would recognize—heck, not even Jimmy Breslin would recognize it—have, in their sagacity and wisdom, adopted a gem of a policy that you “either vote for us or the country burns”.
It doesn’t get more convincing than that.
(Not even a corrupt, dementia-addled Biden or a vile, cringe-worthy Harris—though one has got to admit that it’s one heckuva ticket!—can compete with such utter insanity. They’re going to have awaken the dead and stuff ballots like there’s no tomorrow…. And if they win, one wonders if there will be.)
Art Deco:
You haz the hates for Amity Schlaes because she didn’t fill her book with statistical snapshots of irrelevant data. Authors have to choose what to include and what to leave out, astounding concept. And yet the book was well received and sold well even thought it didn’t pretend to be a statistical tome.
Have you read the book BTW?
You haz the hates for Amity Schlaes because
I don’t have any opinion about Amity Schlaes the person one way or another. However, she does not have the necessary background to produce a work of economic history and her thesis is misconceived. You can tell she doesn’t have the background by the sources she consults.
that neither FDR nor HST nor Adlai Stevenson nor JFK nor RFK nor LBJ nor Hubert Humphrey nor Scoop Jackson nor Daniel Patrick Moynihan nor Walter Mondale
Mr. Mondale is still alive and I’ll wager more lucid than the current Democratic presidential nominee. Like many people of advanced age, he’s had to bury many friends and relations (among them his wife and daughter). I’d be pleased to hear his critique of the current mess if he were willing to offer one.
Art Deco:
Nice opinion you got there, any publications to back it up? “Her thesis is misconceived” aka my opinion is better. Art Deco prefers sources that support his opinion? Whatever.
Here’s a clue about her thesis – it’s hidden in the title “The Forgotten Man.” Look it up.
Art Deco:
Well then, try “THE NEW DEAL OR RAW DEAL,” by Burton Folsom, Jr.
FDR had from early 1933 to late 1941 – almost 9 years !! – to enact policies to end the Great Depression.
He failed.
And that is a fact.
When the USA mobilized for WW2, it took 10 million working age folks, mostly young men, out of the work force and/or the unemployment line and placed them into the military; and it also produced thousands of Betsy The Riveter female workers.
That ended the economic depression.
As for Amity Schlaes having a “poor” bibliography, tell me; how many mainstream economists will use any book or reference or quote of Thomas Sowell??
Oh, that’s right, NONE.
Economics, despite its “mathematical rigor,” is almost entirely composed of either conservative or liberal economists. And their world view will dictate their economic prescriptions; they will develop or adopt a particular economic theory only if it comports with their political ideology.
See Paul Samuleson’s thoughts on the USSR.
See Joe Stiglitz’s comments on Venezuela.
Somehow, despite all their math-laden theories , the above two Nobel Laureates were unable to determine if the USSR’s economic system was superior to that of the USA (Samuelson) or if Hugo Chavez’s economic program for Venezuela was going to be a total disaster (Stiglitz; who actually praised the policies of Chavez !!).
Another great post, neo.
Great lyrics, Gerard.
Great comments, guys. Particularly the the sad, but damn accurate, point by Art about Woodrow Wilson.
Thanks.
This is why despite all the predictions Biden will be replaced I think the Dems *want* to keep him as long as they can prop him up with at least a modicum of credibility. Having this bland barely-competent cipher as a front man is the perfect cover for implementing their radical agenda.
Nice opinion you got there, any publications to back it up?
What, you want me to pen a review of Amity Shlaes bibliography and CV and get it published? You can examine her bibliography yourself. That’s what she considers salient source material. If you’re writing economic history, it isn’t.
“Her thesis is misconceived” aka my opinion is better.
No, her thesis – that the severity of the Depression was a consequence of ‘intervention’ – is one she’d have had to qualify, amend or replace had she simply looked at production statistics during the years running from 1929 to 1941 or compared American economic performance with that of other occidental countries.
Art didn’t read the book and cites non numbers from other countries with other policies and governments. Sophisticated analysis as usual. Don’t fall back on the flatulence defense.
Joe’s line is being quoted frequently online: “Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters?” Yes, Joe, on the soft spot for rioters, and you are a tool of radical socialists, so half-yes on that one.
FDR had from early 1933 to late 1941 – almost 9 years !! – to enact policies to end the Great Depression. He failed.And that is a fact.
No, that’s your imagination at work.
Real Gross Domestic Product per capita grew at a rate of 7.3% per annum during the period running from 1933 to 1941. If you survey Europe, North America, the Southern Cone of South America, Japan, and the Antipodes, there were only two advanced economies which grew more rapidly during the period running from 1932 to 1939.
The net annual rate at which real GDP per capita grew over the period running from 1929 to 1941 was similar to the mean rate registered over the period running from 1885 to 1929.
However, just prior to the war, a great deal of productive capacity was diverted to military uses. If you limit your discussion to civilian production, per capita product in real terms was in 1941 still 8% higher than it had been in 1929. Unemployment rates among civilians in 1941 remained elevated at about 10% of the total (v. 24% in 1933).
Art didn’t read the book and cites non numbers from other countries with other policies and governments. Sophisticated analysis as usual. Don’t fall back on the flatulence defense.
Om doesn’t know what he’s talking about and stalks me online to pass the time. What fun.
Art didn’t read the book and channels the Wizard Of Oz (don’t look behind the curtain) while he cites stats. How familiar, an education almost. And of course Art is comparing 1885 through 1929 to the Great Depression (wrap your head around those apples and oranges) sophisticated analysis from a man wedded to one tool, the misapplication of statistics.
Art didn’t read the book and channels the Wizard Of Oz (don’t look behind the curtain) while he cites stats. How familiar, an education almost. And of course Art is comparing 1885 through 1929 to the Great Depression (wrap your head around those apples and oranges) sophisticated analysis from a man wedded to one tool, the misapplication of statistics.
The point of the comparison of economic performance over the previous four decades and net economic performance between 1929 and 1941 is perfectly plain. Now, the thesis you’re advancing is just what?
“Art didn’t read the book”
He has ESP.
Art Deco:
Nobody’s stalking you. You give as good as you get here, and I’ve asked you and the others to stop the personal attacks. “Stalking” means something entirely different. I doubt that “om” has been following you from blog to blog and jumping on every comment you post around the web. Here, “om” is just responding to you.
I’m tired of this pettiness.
Kate:
It’s a strange comment on the face of it. Who cares what Joe “looks like”? Shakespeare said that one can smile and smile and be a villain. In Joe’s case, what he really looks like is a witless, corrupt tool of the left. It’s not a good look.
Art Deco:
Was the Great Depression an unusual economic event or was there a similar economic disruption during the period from 1885 to 1929? Just like WWII followed WWI the Great Depression followed the Almost Great Depression of ????.
“Perfectly plain,” the Art Deco dictionary in use again.
And before you cry more tears about being a victim of trolling, consider that most of your comments IMO are reasonable, rational, and require no comment or critique.
So Bernie Sanders is saying that a vote for Joe Biden is actually a vote for Bernie Sanders. Way to win over moderates and the undecided.
A lot of people might dislike Trump but is the majority prepared to accept being governed by Bernie Sanders, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, etc. or by people like them?
Was the Great Depression an unusual economic event or was there a similar economic disruption during the period from 1885 to 1929? Just like WWII followed WWI there Great Depression followed the Almost Great Depression of ????, Crickets, anyone?
The question is irrelevant. The point was to compare mean rates of economic improvement to gauge the point at which you could say the production levels had reached the point you might expect had growth occurred in accordance with long term trends. That point was reached in 1941, prior to the war.
And before you cry more tears about being a victim of trolling
The term ‘crying’ does not mean what you fancy it means. If you need an illustration to get the point of what I’m saying, it’s here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=loser+l&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01revm2YMtUxhR_6wGL8U4h80dlaQ:1598995543649&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=rVnoailJX9EyqM%252CQCCZKRihQcCBaM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRfElmI_35ouDQV7TbxHousMW9wsw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJroHL8sjrAhVNl3IEHe2pD_QQ_h0wAXoECA0QBA&biw=1185&bih=647#imgrc=rVnoailJX9EyqM
Now, your thesis is just what?
I doubt that “om” has been following you
[chuckles]
Art Deco:
Nice use of the truncated quote – not!
I didn’t write that I doubt om’s been following you. I wrote this [emphasis added]:
Now, it’s possible that’s what you are alleging. If so, make that crystal clear. But on this blog no one is “stalking” you.
Does Art Deco comment anywhere else? All I know of him is from his comments here. Who would put up with him elsewhere?
You can use average when referring to data but his take is often mean if you don’t agree with him.
Stalky, stalky, trolly, trolly I’m being repressed! LOL, 😉
Your thesis is just what? If the moderatrix wants to answer for you, I’ll take that as your reply.
Art Deco:
Did you read her book, “The Forgotten Man?” Curiously, you haven’t answered that simple question, and don’t tell me there are an infinite number or more important books to read since you claim her thesis is faulty or shallow. You seem to have read her bibilography/references and made a judgement from there.
I’m not about to pull my copy from the shelf and abstract it for you, but to be brief, it is mostly a critique of FDR and the progressive policy of economic experimentation that failed. They tried a lot of things that didn’t work, and economic uncertainty and paralysis was the result. It is about individuals great and small, in the private sector, in government, political and nonpolitical. It is not heavy in the stuff you relish, dry statistics (?), however applied or misapplied.
You of course are free to write you own book analyzing the economic policies of FDR and the Great Depression.
No cheap shots at our hostess, show some class.
Alas, the problem isn’t helped at all by the cover I’m seeing afforded to Bernie and his fellow hard leftists in the form of a certain grudging respect paid them by many conservatives. I’m hearing from people who should know better the following refrain, or words to the effect: “Well, unlike Biden who’ll say anything, at least Bernie’s consistent in his message”. No. No, he’s not. If only he were.
Bernie is not CONsistent. He’s just PERsistent. He’s persistent in hypocritically working to impose on the rest of us an inhumane, totalitarian regime whose harsh economic, social and intellectual restrictions he fully intends should not constrain him or those he cares for.
If he was consistent he, and his allies who are pushing to impose a Marxist model, would accept its multi-faceted constraints for themselves but they don’t. Totalitarians never have and never will.
Posing as a man of the people and pushing Marxism as best and fairest for all while famously owning 3 comfortable homes and a bank account larger than one could ever need to satisfy one’s wants is hypocrisy and is not consistent with the economic and social model he and his allies advance.
None of these people of the left-wing of the Democrat party or their deeply-ignorant enablers – ever intend that they should have to live with and are never subject to the consequences of their own failed policies in their own daily lives and they need to be called out on it. Sacrifices are for others: the plebs of the hinterland and all who are unwoke, to endure. Ask Lightfoot or Pelosi’s hairdressers if you doubt me.
Should you prefer, ask the lady who credibly claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Biden in a government building what the “She must be believed”/ “Me too” crowd did to support her. Strangely, I have no trouble recalling Christine Blasey Ford’s name yet I can’t recall the name of Biden’s accuser. It’s not because my memory is failing but because the media celebrated the one while it ignores the other.
Consistency on the part of such people would be for them to live in diverse neighbourhoods, to send their children to ethnically-enriched public schools, to line up in the casualty/ER ward of a local hospital for treatment when needed or to be content to live according to their simplest needs rather than indulging their material desires. But that will never happen.
The same iron-clad law of human nature that saw totalitarian tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Saddam and the Kim family live at a level of luxury unimaginable by those they pretended to serve plays out at a lower level, (at least for the moment), in the lives of Bernie, AOC, Biden, et al.
And it’s not going to change. Nancy P’s ice cream providore can sleep peacefully because so great is the elite’s contempt for the little fellow, they now don’t even feel a need to hide their hypocrisy. Some of them think we’re so stupid we won’t catch on. Much worse: the rest don’t even care if we do.
“show some class.”
Don’t hold your breath.
“No matter what one thinks of FDR, he did NOT hate the country nor did he despise the electorate that did not vote for him.” – Barry
I don’t know about that, but he despised an awful lot of the electorate that DID vote for him.
http://new.wymaninstitute.org/2019/07/facing-up-to-fdrs-racism/
“I actually think Obama goes beyond narcissism, all the way to being a solipsist.” – Eeyore (cf Sparticus & North)
https://www.wordnik.com/words/solipsism
Sounds like a narcissistic sociopath to me.
ART DECO:
The unemployment rate from in 1933 – when FDR took office – until 1940 never dropped below 14.3%.
It ranged over this time period from a low of 14.3% to a high of 24.9%
It finally went below double digits in 1941 when it dropped to 9.9%. I will speculate it dropped in 1941 because the USA began re-arming.
Irrespective of one’s political leanings, this terrible record over a 9 year period is factual proof of the inept and incompetent economic policies of FDR.
Look, Herbert Hoover, a Republican, because of his economic policies, aided and abetted the onset of the Great Depression; his political ideology as regards this point is irrelevant.