Sanders followers have assumed an attitude that they are the only ones with a moral agenda, they are the moral leaders in this election, and Hillary Clinton’s followers are either ignorant people or as immoral as “she is”. You can read and hear that attitude of moral superiority in the MSM comment sections and in online blogs, and hear them at YouTube.
You can NEVER win an argument with people whose claim is that they are morally superior than the others. This conceit in politics (and in religious fanatics) is the base over which tyrants and fascist stand. It could in part explain why Sanders followers find so much affinity with Trump, to the point of considering voting for him, not just out of spite, but because they actually think that Trump is a ‘different type’ of revolutionary.
But Sanders too is framing his campaign as a “moral” campaign; e.g., he argues about the “immorality” of the 0.1%er. The problem with morality in politics (a place where morality is not the main concern, power is) is that you then have to be consistent with what you defend as moral: because “moral” is in the eye of the beholder.
Here I discuss Sanders responses to the NY Daily News interview.
Not only you will not find any substance in Sanders political ‘revolution’, you will not find a steady moral support for his ‘revolution’: it’s all about “trades and income”. Missing from his description of his revolution is the compassion for women and Blacks. We have seen what he thinks of Trump’s attack on women last week: he said the right thing to do is to ignore it. And here, Sanders again refers to Blacks victims of police violence as “ranting mentally ill” people.
In this post I point at some of those inconsistent “moral” arguments, and at how Sanders’ lack of understanding of the problems he is proposing to “fix” is immoral in itself.
I’m not a professional writer or blogger, so I will just put my observations in bullet type format.
- Sanders said that it is immoral that Wall Street “are trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes”.
- Sanders himself has refused to disclose his taxes. He is right: when someone hides his taxes, it usually is because they are not paying their fair share of taxes. One has to conclude that Sanders refusal to show his tax papers indicates that he is not paying his fair share of taxes, that he is lying about his income. That would make him ‘immoral’, wouldn’t it?
2. The moral argument that big corporations leave the American workers for cheaper labor worldwide: “The only thing that matters is that I can make a little bit more money. That the dollar is all that is almighty. And I think that is the moral fabric.”
- But what about the greed of businessmen whose profit comes from manufacturing guns and war armaments? Sanders unleashed the police on progressives, when he was mayor, to protect those greedy CEOs who were manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Where is the moral argument there? That it is OK to be greedy and manufacture weapons of mass destruction if you are doing it at home and giving your people a “decent salary”?
- Is a war-based economy something we should pursue as something moral only because it creates jobs? Shouldn’t we be against a “progress” based on killing other human beings in poor nations?
- Sanders says that he has not considered the “unintended consequences” of breaking the banks. “So I can’t say, if you’re saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.
3. How does Sanders defines ‘morality’?
- “To me, what moral is, I’ve got to be concerned about you. You’ve got to be concerned about my wife.” I’ll leave you to make sense of that one.
4. How does Sanders defines the moral aspect of his revolution? For an answer, he refers you to the Pope; ask him. Sanders can’t explain his ‘revolution’ except by referring you to either wiki to read about New Zealand’s economy or to the Pope:
- “I believe that we can and should move to what Pope Francis calls a moral economy.”
5. What about the immorality of corporate globalism? Sanders is a globalist, so he can’t see anything immoral with it. It only needs to be tweaked. He only cares that it is “unfair” to workers, not to women, but to workers in general.
- “I’m not anti-trade. We live in a global economy, we need trade.
6. So, then, how do we make globalism more moral, more “fair”? The implication is that globalism is here to stay, no need to question it in itself. Let’s just make it “fair”, as if you can negotiate with the oligarchs to drop you some crumbs. So, how Sanders define “fair” in a globalist world?
- “So you have to have standards. And what fair trade means to say that it is fair. It is roughly equivalent to the wages and environmental standards in the United States.”
- Sanders proposes, in the interview, that while it is true that his trade positions are the same as Trump’s, what separates both of them is that definition of “fair trade”. I’m sure you can see the many questions his definition of fair trade raises. There’s no morals there, just give them a better salary. The rest stays the same.
About the “too big to fail”: His ignorance about the problem and the solutions is appalling
- “We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct?” The “we” is correct because HE did bailed them out. The immoral part of this is that: a) he did bail them out and b) denies he did it. SEE HERE.
- Sanders’ revolution against Wall Street is based on a so-called moral ground, he knows not how WS functions nor how he is going to change them into ‘moral entities’: Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it.
- He acknowledges that the president has no power to make any changes or determinations about breaking the big banks. But he, as president will make the revolution, some how.
- He is not assuring or promising that the “too big to fail” will be broken in his administration. He is saying that he would EMPOWER the Fed Res to determine if and only if those in the list qualify as “too big to fail”. But we saw he knows nothing about the Fed, and if you leave it to the Feds to decide who is too big, you will see no changes.
- He would let the banks decide if and how they would ‘re-structure’ themselves. Now, that’s revolutionary.
- He acknowledges that he has not considered what to do when the SCOTUS kills his plan. Sanders: It’s something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.
- He acknowledges that he doesn’t know what the “unintended consequences” of his ‘revolution’ will be, but he knows the economy in general will get better…by magic.
- He trashed Hillary because she is not bold enough, bc she believes in “incremental changes”, but he wants to do it fast, not planning, not caring for ‘unintended consequences’…
- The revolution done with “voter turn out”. He is not supporting any candidates for Congress or the Senate, but he says if he wins, dems win automatically in Congress.
- Palestinians: “Israel has a right to exist in peace and security without having to face terrorist attacks…” no right to self-defense for Palestinians and no right to access to the International Court either…and don’t ask him why!! Daily News: Why not? Sanders: Why not? Daily News: Why not, why it…Sanders: Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world? I’m just telling you that I happen to believe..
About drones and torture
- He likes drones.
- Torture..yes: Sanders: And try to get as much information out of him. If the question leads us to Guantanamo…Sanders: Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot. The best location where that individual would be safely secured in a way that we can get information out of him.
- The morals of war: there’s none in his discussion. He didn’t say a word about stopping these wars. He is against the death penalty, but OK with killing in the battle field with drones; he implied it is a convenience because you don’t have to deal with issues of death penalty and legal rights at home when you arrest a ‘terrorist’.
- Sanders: Such as do what many other countries are doing. Look, you’ve got somebody who’s clearly mentally ill outside, right? Ranting and raving, and maybe they have a knife in their hands. Are there ways to deal with that issue other than shooting that person?
- He thinks that ALL victims killed by cops are “ranting mentally ill, maybe with a knife in their hands”.
Other post relevant to this discussion: