Bernie Sanders to Trump on Carrier: ‘I’ve got your back’

If people were more mindful of how politicians use words, how they phrase their ideas, we would be blessed with decent presidential administrations instead of constantly having to fight-off this swarm of conniving politicians from right to left. Take the case of good old Sanders’ response to Trump’s deal with Carrier company:

In essence, United Technologies took Trump hostage and won.

Did you see it? Its’ right there, I underlined it for you. Poor Trump, he was victimized by that evil and greedy company. It took Trump HOSTAGE!

In case you don’t know, that is a subtle attempt at manipulation of public opinion.

Bernie Sanders Loves Trump

Sanders has always had sympathy for Trump, they share so much in so many ways.

He is telling you there that Trump was ‘outmaneuvered’ by the company, it was not that Trump actively and knowingly planned the details of the labor agreement with the company: He was FORCED, involuntarily into the agreement.

Sanders is playing on the mass delusion that Trump is somehow an innocent businessman with no experience in government politics, the myth of the “outsider” politician. He likes that because he called himself an outsider too. He can relate to Trump’s sad position. Poor El Duce, he will be prey to these barracudas.

Funny thing is that Sanders, paternalistically maybe, shows Trump’s weakness in the area where his followers and sympathizers see his strength, as a ‘successful’ businessman who will use that ‘intelligence’ to get us out of the grip of the globalists.

Sanders, on day one, expressed his joy at the prospect of “working with him”.

Well, here he is, kissing Trump’s knees.

I can’t stand this little opportunist pseudo socialist. He has been betraying the working class he claims to defend, most notably during the elections. Thanks to him Trump is there. Sanders provided him all the insults and lies needed to continue vilifying Hillary Clinton throughout the presidential campaign. He never apologized to her for grotesque misogynistic attacks he launched on her.

Dishonest people like him, they always get caught lying. Chalk this “hostage” statement as the first instance of him lying pretending to dislike Trump.

Sanders has Trump’s back.

There will be many more like this to come, folks.

(Check my post-elections posts about Sanders.)

 

 

 

 

More Evidence Sanders’ Supporters Responsible for Trump Presidency

More evidence that Berniebots gave the presidency to Trump.

Trump won Michigan by 2,279,543 votes (47.6 percent), according to the certified results — 10,704 more than Hillary Clinton’s 2,268,839 (47.4 percent).

Jill Stein, Green Party, won 51,463 votes (1.1 percent). Those are ‘protest votes‘. Hillary would have won Michigan with 11k of those 51k+ votes.

History will condemn these stupid, STUPID people for the atrocities Trump will unleash on this nation and the world.

History Is Written By The Victors, And Sanders Takes Dictation. The Making of The Myth Of Trump’s Victory

Winston Churchill supposedly said that history is written by the victors, but the history of this presidential election cycle will be written by the candidate rejected by the people, Trump. And right there starts the problem of how this history will be read in the future. Does it matter? I think it does; it matters a lot.

wapo

Washington Post. It was a “success”, historic in a positive way; no mention that he was rejected by the people.

And The Winner Is…

The books on political history of the USA that will be used in high schools 50 years from now  might as well start with the statement that on November 8 2016 Donald J Trump won the presidential election over a woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton; end of sentence, then pass to discuss his ‘legacy’. The rest of the story can be ignored in the same way that many inconvenient historical facts are ignored.

But the results of these elections are pretty complicated, aren’t they? How and who decided who won? Answer, the impersonal ‘electoral college’ (EC). What’s the purpose of the EC?

Although the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have a say, there was concern that a charismatic tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come into power. Alexander Hamilton briefly addressed these concerns in the Federalist Papers. The idea was that the electors would be a group of people who would ensure that a qualified person would become president.

Funny thing is that in 2016, not only they dismissed the will of the people who voted by overwhelming majority for the candidate they and her opponents considered “the most qualified”; the members of the EC  elected as president the candidate that even the members of his own party considered “unqualified”, and the kind of populist tyrant the Fathers had in mind when they put that atrocious EC in the Constitution.

When the people in the electoral college dismiss the will of the people and DICTATE that the presidency will go to someone unqualified and unfit to be president, violating in that way their Constitutional mandate, I submit to you, that is a coup d’etat. And there were Democrats in the EC who stated publicly, before the elections, that they would not accept the people’s will and will vote against Hillary.

The danger in this situation is that, to clean up the evidence of a ‘coup‘, two myth are being created as we speak: the myth that Trump ‘defeated’ Hillary Clinton, and the myth that Hillary Clinton, not only lost and was defeated (a word that conjures images of physical violence), but her loss was of her own making because what caused her defeat was not really the electoral colleges but her “neglect” of the “needs of white blue-collar working men”.  Implied in the ‘Hillary myth’ is the code that if Trump becomes a tyrant and the people suffer his tyranny, it will all be Hillary’s fault for being, as Sanders called her, “a shitty candidate”. That much the Leftists have  been saying, and it is consistent with their year-long campaign of blaming Hillary for all the evils of the world.

After stealing the elections and blaming her for what is yet to come, the next step is to ‘fix’ Hillary’s ‘egregious’ neglect of white voters; the GOP, Sanders and the Democrats will be supporting policies to ‘correct’ the economic pain of those white GOP blue-collar workers. More on this and the myths below.

Thus, the presidency was not won, the president was not elected by the people. Technically speaking Trump won, but he also won in what is perceived by 3/4 of the people of the planet, in an undemocratic fashion.

And The Losers Are…

This is where Sanders, members of the Democratic party, and the American Left (AL) enter this discussion.

The presidency was stolen from Hillary Clinton, but the people of the USA and democracy were the HUGE losers. 

That’s the big difference that we can’t let the First Lewd President, Trump, and his gang of deplorables ignore when they write their history.

The problem is that, not only Trump and his coterie of Pinochets are repeating the lie that he won, but that  the media, MSM and Leftist, Sanders, members of the Democratic party and the AL, they are all repeating that Hillary lost.

That the American Left and Democrats and Sanders, all supposedly lovers of freedom and democracy, are willing to ignore the fact that the big losers here were the people and the American democracy, is less offensive than how they are doing it.

These false prophets of the working class are joining Trump and his gang of deplorables to construct TWO myths:

  1. That Hillary lost, and phrased positively for Trump, that Trump defeated Hillary Clinton. Words matter, people. Repeat constantly, as Sanders and the Left are doing without qualifying it, that Trump defeated ‘that woman’, and you have history written by the losers.

2. Sanders and the Left’s discourse is that all of the catastrophe that is about to land on us is Hillary Clinton’s fault, that her ‘evilness’ and ‘incompetence’ is what brought this debacle of an administration on us. The mantra that Hillary is not credible continues when everybody jumps at her for saying that the last week of emails did her in. The vociferous Sanders and Leftists and the media shouts at her that she lost because…she didn’t care about white collar workers, she cared only for WS…you name it, it is NEVER that the elections were undemocratic and stolen from the people. That has disappeared from the conversation.

The Danger Within The Myth: Racism as Policy

That she ‘lost’ because she ignored the white blue-collar men of the GOP is racist Identity Politics (IP) in action; blaming her for the actions of the electoral colleges – giving Trump the presidency – because of race identities. The triumph of Trump’s racist call to protect the economic rights of white-men is now supported by Sanders and the Left and his mostly white Bernies. They are now “looking to work” with Trump to make this a national policy priority: pacify the deplorables who want their needs above the rest of the people of this nation. It turns the GOP into a Nationalist Socialist German Party (NAZI); just delete ‘German‘ and insert ‘American.’

This is why Identity Politics is anathema to the GOP, the oligarchs, the conservatives and the American Left and Sanders, because it can be used by them to protect white privileges, but denies the “others” non-white the right to fight against those racist policies: “it’s class, stupid, not race” shouted Leftist CounterPunch magazine the other day. By denying that they are using IP, anyone who denounces it is then labeled by them a racist against white people.

Identity Politics is a term that shows who is getting what and who is not getting it. This is what unchallenged Identity Politics looks like:

Identity Politics: No need to be concerned about it.

Finally, no where is there on that side of the deplorables (Sanders and the Left included in the ‘deplorables’) an ounce of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. Men ganging on her with viciousness and hatred, because it is mostly men the ones accusing her of losing the presidency, to accuse her of not being caring for the needs of the white racists.

I invite you to challenge every time you find it this narrative that Hillary lost and Trump ‘defeated her’.

Trump’s win might best be seen as the success of the U.S.’s first independent president WaPo

Sanders et al traitors of the American people have joined Trump and are excited about working with him. Since February I have talking here about Sanders and the Left and how they have become intellectually and ideologically corrupt. They have proved me right.

Please, don’t let the coup that was perpetrated on us to be written as ‘the will of the people’.

(As always, I write with an ESL ‘accent’. Please, forgive the bad grammar and composition.)

From New Republic: The Democrats’ Craven Response to Donald Trump

This article is more ‘classy’ in addressing the issue I have discussed here on my previous three or four posts: That the Dems have taken their masks off and shown their true face.  And yet, the author is less ‘radical’ in that all he is asking is for Dems to demand Trump ‘apologizes’ for all the insults he dished during the elections. My point has been that Dems should NOT work with Trump at all. Trump by himself can do no harm. It is in the fascist Cabinet he is assembling where the danger resides. So, asking for apologies is useless.

 

The Democrats’ Craven Response to Donald Trump

Democratic lawmakers want to make nice with the new president. This is both short-sighted and cowardly.

 

Not ten days out from the election of a man that they called “unfit” for office—who is expected to assume the presidency despite currently losing the popular vote by 1.4 million votes (a number expected to grow)—and congressional Democrats are doing what they do best: acquiescing. They are trying to find “common ground” with the person who said he would prosecute his opponent if he were to win the election. A man currently involved in 75 pending lawsuits, one of which involves allegations of child rape. The candidate who openly asked Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Who made fun of a reporter with disabilities. Who never released his tax returns. I could go on.

According to The New York Times, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and several other Democratic leaders want to take a different tack from the congressional Republicans who executed a strategy of near total obstruction during President Barack Obama’s administration—to great effect. Instead, Democrats are seeking areas in which Democrats and the president-elect will be able to work together: infrastructure spending, mandated paid maternity leave, ending tax breaks on hedge funds, etc. No less a progressive than Bernie Sanders said that if Trump “keeps his promises” that he will be “ready to work with him.” (One hopes there are several promises of Trump’s that Bernie doesn’t want him to keep.)

On the surface this seems reasonable: Why not work with Trump to move forward a few Democratic priorities? Furthermore, offering Trump incentives to work across the aisle could create a wedge between him and congressional Republicans, who may be forced into making uncomfortable choices on these issues. Trump has also shown a pathological need for praise and attention: His love affair with Vladimir Putin seems to stem from some early (and likely mistranslated) praise from the Russian authoritarian. Telling Trump he has good ideas and that they want to work with him will probably earn Democrats a few brownie points.

Were this a normal election, with a middle-of-the-road conservative Republican about to assume the presidency, this might be a defensible strategy. But with this Republican, and at this precise moment, this approach seems like dangerous folly. The bulk of Hillary Clinton’s campaign involved trying to convince the American people that Trump was a danger to America, an unstable, unprepared, intellectually uncurious narcissist who also happens to hate immigrants and women. Might it be possible, then, that some of the 63 million of us who voted for her actually believe these things, and are not quite ready for this quick about-face towards compromise? Are these Washington insiders paying any attention to the national mood lately? Do they not see how many protests are happening every day, and how many more are being planned? Are they so out of touch?

To so many Democrats like myself, any mention of finding common ground with Trump is a step towards accomplishing the exact thing we fear most: normalization. And this is precisely what cannot happen after a campaign as ugly as Trump’s. We reject the idea that what we just experienced was somehow acceptable, just “politics”—that the things he said, that the way he conducted himself in his campaign, and that the people he has surrounded himself with, can be forgiven and forgotten. Many of us are not ready, and may never be. Clinton’s lead in the popular vote looks to be four times Al Gore’s in the 2000 election—excuse us for still questioning the legitimacy of Trump’s election, even if we eventually must accept it. Excuse us for not being so ready to dive into what many of us fear will be the worst presidency of our lifetimes.

It’s also unclear what long-term benefit congressional Democrats expect from forging deals with Trump. Need they be reminded, for instance, that Obama practically begged Republicans for increased infrastructure spending every year and they consistently refused him? And who ended up getting the blame for a lackluster recovery from the Great Recession? Obama, not Republicans. Similarly, if Democrats secure an infrastructure spending package with President Trump, it is the Republicans who stand to benefit from any economic gains—who will be in a position to go into 2020 with something to brag about. Democrats will not get any credit for these kinds of compromises.

Furthermore, the Democratic attempts to differentiate between aspects of Trump’s platform—offering Trump consensus on some economic issues, while drawing a line in the sand on cultural ones like racism, bigotry, etc.—is astonishingly naïve. White working class voters weren’t ignorant of Trump’s manifest vulgarity, or his odious stances on immigrants. They heard the Access Hollywood tape. They knew it all—likely they just didn’t care. If Trump delivers to them on their pocketbook issues, they will stick with him. They will not flock to the Democrats.

It appears that only Harry Reid is getting the Democratic response right. Until Trump offers his apologies on the patently toxic campaign he ran, until he shows that he is capable of admitting just how much trauma and hate he has inflicted upon our country, Democrats should offer no olive branches.

By prematurely offering to work with Trump before he has shown even the slightest bit of contrition—before he has even filled out his sure-to-be controversial cabinet—congressional Democrats are hollowing out the argument they made for months. He is unfit for office, and that is precisely the argument that needs to be made—now more than ever. Gallup’s first favorability ratings for our new president-elect are far and away the worst in the firm’s history. It is up to Trump to prove to us that he is able to lead. We shouldn’t make it easy for him.

 

From National Review: “Bernie’s Strange Brew of Nationalism and Socialism “

This is an interesting article by Kevin D. Williamson July 20, 2015 4:00 AM and posted at National Review about Bernie Sanders and ‘national socialism’, and that uncritical love for anything Putin now-a-days. Its content has more relevance today with his and the Left’s move to support Donald Trump in the White House. While I don’t agree with the content in its totality, there are some valid arguments about Sanders and what to expect from him in these turbulent political days.

Marshalltown, Iowa — “All foreign-made vehicles park in designated area in rear of building.” So reads the sign in front of United Auto Workers Local 893 in Marshalltown, Iowa, though nobody is bothered much about the CNN satellite truck out front, a Daimler-AG Freightliner proudly declaring itself “Powered by Mercedes-Benz,” nor about the guys doggedly and earnestly unpacking yard signs and $15 T-shirts and rolls of giveaway stickers from a newish Subaru, all that swag bearing the face and/or logo of Senator Bernie Sanders, the confessing socialist from Brooklyn representing Vermont in the Senate who is, in his half-assed and almost endearingly low-rent way, challenging Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. The bumper stickers on the mainly foreign-made cars of his followers tell the story: One of those “Peace” (not the more popular “Coexist”) slogans made of various world religious symbols, “Clean Water Is for Life!” and “The Warren Wing of the Democratic Party,” sundry half-literate denunciations of “Corporate Oligarchy” . . . “Not Just Gay — Ecstatic!” The union hall, like the strangely church-like auditorium at Drake University the night before, was chosen with calculation. Bernie — he’s “Bernie,” not Senator Sanders or Mr. Sanders or that weirdo socialist from Soviet Beninjerristan, just lovable, cuddly “Bernie,” like a grumpy Muppet who spent too much time around the Workers World party back in the day — our Bernie may not be the slickest practitioner of the black arts of electioneering, but he’s got some smart people on his small team, and they are smart enough to book him in rooms with capacities that are about 85 percent of the modest crowds they are expecting, thereby creating the illusion of overflow audiences. At subsequent events in New Hampshire and Arizona, they’ll report crowds in excess of 10,000; litigating headcounts is one of the great stupid amusing political pastimes, but, for purposes of comparison, Herself draws a crowd not much larger than Bernie’s a few days later in Des Moines.

Team Bernie is trying to make this a real race, but it isn’t — not yet, anyway. As of mid-July, Bernie was sitting at 12 percent in the Iowa polls, Herself at 54 percent. Bernie’s best showing is in New Hampshire, immediately adjacent to the state he represents, and Herself still leads him by a fat margin there. Team Bernie does all the usual tedious stuff, such as planting volunteers in the audience to shout on cue, “Yes, yes!” and the occasional Deanesque “Yeaaaaaaah!” It’s all very familiar, but there is a sense that what’s going on here isn’t really politics, but kids play-acting at politics. Sanders, as stiff a member as Congress has to offer, repeatedly refers to the audience as “brothers and sisters,” and the union bosses greet one another as “brother,” and you get the feeling that after a beer or three one of these characters is going to slip up and let out a “comrade.” If it’s anybody, it’s probably going to be the grandmotherly lady in the hammer-and-sickle T-shirt. She’s well inclined toward Bernie, she says, though she distrusts his affiliation with the Democratic party. “He’s part of . . . them,” she says, grimacing. “Yeah,” says her friend, who stops to think for a moment. “He’s a senator, right?” Aside from Grandma Stalin there, there’s not a lot of overtly Soviet iconography on display around the Bernieverse, but the word “socialism” is on a great many lips. Not Bernie’s lips, for heaven’s sake: The guy’s running for president. But Tara Monson, a young mother who has come out to the UAW hall to support her candidate, is pretty straightforward about her issues: “Socialism,” she says. “My husband’s been trying to get me to move to a socialist country for years — but now, maybe, we’ll get it here.” The socialist country she has in mind is Norway, which of course isn’t a socialist country at all: It’s an oil emirate. Monson is a classic American radical, which is to say, a wounded teenager in an adult’s body: Asked what drew her to socialism and Bernie, she says that she is “very atheist,” and that her Catholic parents were not accepting of this. She goes on to cite her “social views,” and by the time she gets around to the economic questions, she’s not Helle Thorning-Schmidt — she’s Pat Buchanan, complaining about “sending our jobs overseas.”

In the Bernieverse, there’s a whole lot of nationalism mixed up in the socialism. He is, in fact, leading a national-socialist movement, which is a queasy and uncomfortable thing to write about a man who is the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. But there is no other way to characterize his views and his politics. The incessant reliance on xenophobic (and largely untrue) tropes holding that the current economic woes of the United States are the result of scheming foreigners, especially the wicked Chinese, “stealing our jobs” and victimizing his class allies is nothing more than an updated version of Kaiser Wilhelm II’s “yellow peril” rhetoric, and though the kaiser had a more poetical imagination — he said he had a vision of the Buddha riding a dragon across Europe, laying waste to all — Bernie’s take is substantially similar. He describes the normalization of trade relations with China as “catastrophic” — Sanders and Jesse Helms both voted against the Clinton-backed China-trade legislation — and heaps scorn on every other trade-liberalization pact. That economic interactions with foreigners are inherently hurtful and exploitative is central to his view of how the world works.

Sounding more than a little like Donald Trump — and that’s not mere coincidence — Bernie bellows that he remembers a time when you could walk into a department store and “buy things made in the U.S.A.” Before the “Made in China” panic, there was the “Made in Japan” panic of the 1950s and 1960s, and the products that provoked that panic naturally went on to be objects of nostalgia. Terror of the Asian Economic Superman is a staple of modern American politics: A quarter century ago, the artist Roger Handy published a book of photographs titled Made in Japan: Transistor Radios of the 1950s and 1960s. We all remember Captain Lion Mandrake’s account of being tortured in a Japanese prison-of-war camp: “I don’t think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.” Like most of these advocates of “economic patriotism” (Barack Obama’s once-favored phrase) Bernie worries a great deal about trade with brown people — Asians, Latin Americans — but has never, so far as public records show, made so much as a peep about our very large trade deficit with Sweden, which as a share of bilateral trade volume is not much different from our trade deficit with China, or about the size of our trade deficit with Canada, our largest trading partner. Sanders doesn’t rail about the Canadians and Germans stealing our jobs — his ire is reserved almost exclusively for the Chinese and the Latin Americans, as when he demanded of Herself, in the words of the old protest song, “Which side are you on?” The bad guys, or American workers “seeing their jobs go to China or Mexico?”

But for the emerging national socialist, dusky people abroad are not the only problem. I speak with Bernie volunteer McKinly Springer, an earnest young man whose father worked for the UAW local hosting the rally. He’s very interested in policies that interpose the government between employers and employees — for example, mandatory paid maternity and paternity leave. He lived for a time in Germany, first studying abroad and then working for Bosch, an automotive-parts company. He is a great admirer of the German welfare state, saying: “I ask myself: Why do they have these nice things, and we can’t?” I ask him to answer his own question, and his answer is at once familiar and frightening: “Germany is very homogeneous. They have lots of white people. We’re very diverse. We have the melting pot, and that’s a big struggle.”

Donald Trump has some thoughts on that.
That the relative success of the Western European welfare states, and particularly of the Scandinavian states, is rooted in cultural and ethnic homogeneity is a longstanding conservative criticism of Bernie-style schemes to re-create the Danish model in New Jersey and Texas and Mississippi. The conservative takeaway is: Don’t build a Scandinavian welfare state in Florida. But if you understand the challenges of diversity and you still want to build a Scandinavian welfare state, or even a German one, that points to some uncomfortable conclusions. Indeed, one very worked-up young man confronts Bernie angrily about his apparent unwillingness to speak up more robustly about his liberal views on illegal immigration. Springer gets a few sentences into a disquisition on ethnic homogeneity when a shadow crosses his face, as though he is for the first time thinking through the ugly implications of what he believes in light of what he knows. He trails off, looking troubled.
Bernie, who represents the second-whitest state in the union, may not have thought too hard about this. But the Left is thinking about it: T. A. Frank, writing in The New Republic, argues that progressives should oppose Obama’s immigration-reform plans because poor foreigners flooding our labor markets will undercut the wages of low-income Americans. Cheap foreign cars, cheap foreign labor — you can see the argument.
‘Conservatives can identify each other by smell — did you know that?” He’s an older gentleman, neatly dressed in a pink button-down shirt, his slightly unruly white hair and cracked demeanor calling to mind the presidential candidate he is here to evaluate. He’s dead serious, too, and it’s not just Republicans’ sniffing one another’s butts that’s on his mind. He goes on a good-humored tirade about how one can identify conservatives’ and progressives’ homes simply by walking down the street and observing the landscaping. Conservatives, he insists, “torture” the flowers and shrubbery, imposing strict order and conformity on their yards, whereas progressives just let things bloom as nature directs. I am tempted to ask him which other areas in life he thinks might benefit from that kind of unregulated, spontaneous order, but I think better of it. One of Sanders’s workers, a young Occupy veteran, shoots me an eye-rolling look: Crazy goes with the territory.
Here in a dreary, rundown, hideous little corner of Des Moines dotted with dodgy-looking bars and dilapidated groceries advertising their willingness to accept EBT payments sits Drake University, where Bernie is speaking at Sheslow Auditorium, a kind of mock church — spire, stained glass, double staircase leading down to the podium for communion — that is the perfect setting for the mock-religious fervor that the senator brings to the stump. He is a clumsy speaker, pronouncing “oligarchy” — a word he uses in every speech — as though he were starting to say “à la mode.” He’s one of those rhetorical oafs whose only dynamic modulations are sudden shifts in volume — he’s the oratorical equivalent of every Nirvana song ever written — and he is un­disciplined, speaking for an hour and then pressing right through, on and on, feeling the need to check off every progressive box, as though new orbiters in the Bernieverse might think him a Rick Santorum–level pro-lifer if he didn’t lay his pro-choice credentials out on the table at least once during every speech. “Brothers and sisters, . . .” repeatedly: global warming, $15 minimum wage, putting an end to free trade, gays, gays, abortion, gays, lies about women making only 78 cents on the male dollar, mass transit, gays and abortion and gays, Kochs and Waltons and hedge-fund managers!
He does not suggest that conservatives can literally sniff one another out pheromonally, but the idea that his political opponents are a tribe apart is central to his platform, which can be summarized in three words: “Us and Them.” And, contra the hammer-and-sickle lady, Bernie is pretty emphatic that he is not one of the hated Them.
And this is where the Bernieverse is really off-kilter, where the intellectual shallowness of the man and his followers is as impossible to miss as a winter bonfire. The Scandinavian welfare states they so admire are very different from the United States in many ways, and one of the most important is that their politics are consensus-driven. That has some significant downsides, prominent among them the crushing conformity that is ruthlessly enforced on practically every aspect of life. (The Dano-Norwegian novelist Aksel Sandemose called it “Jante law,” after the petty and bullying social milieu of the fictional village Jante in A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks.) But it is also a stabilizing and moderating force in politics, allowing for the emergence of a subtle and sophisticated and remarkably broad social agreement that contains political disputes. Bernie’s politics, on the other hand, are the polar opposite of Scandinavian: He’s got a debilitating case of Tea Party envy. He promises not just confrontation but hostile, theatrical confrontation, demonizing not only his actual opponents but his perceived enemies as well, including the Walton family, whose members are not particularly active in politics these days, and some of whom are notably liberal. That doesn’t matter: If they have a great deal of wealth, they are the enemy. (What about Tom Steyer and George Soros? “False equivalency,” Bernie scoffs.) He knows who Them is: The Koch brothers, who make repeated appearances in every speech; scheming swarthy foreigners who are stealing our jobs; bankers, the traditional bogeymen of conspiracy theorists ranging from Father Coughlin and Henry Ford to Louis Farrakhan; Wall Street; etc.
He is steeped in this stuff, having begun his political career with the radical Liberty Union party in the 1970s. Liberty Union sometimes ran its own candidates but generally endorsed candidates from other parties, most often the Socialist Party USA, making a few exceptions: twice for Lenora Fulani’s New Alliance party and once for the Workers World party, a Communist party that split with Henry Wallace’s Progressives over its view of Mao Zedong’s murderous rule and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Hungary — both of which it supported. The radical political language of the 1970s and 1980s spoke of a capitalist conspiracy or a conspiracy of bankers (a conspiracy of Jewish bankers, in the ugliest versions), a notion to which Sanders pays ongoing tribute with the phrase “rigged economy.”
And criminalizing things is very much on Bernie’s agenda, beginning with the criminalization of political dissent. At every event he swears to introduce a constitutional amendment reversing Supreme Court decisions that affirmed the free-speech protections of people and organizations filming documentaries, organizing Web campaigns, and airing television commercials in the hopes of influencing elections or public attitudes toward public issues. That this would amount to a repeal of the First Amendment does not trouble Bernie at all. If the First Amendment enables Them, then the First Amendment has got to go.
F. A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom notwithstanding, corralling off foreign-made cars does not lead inevitably to corralling off foreign-born people, or members of ethnic minorities, although the Asians-and-Latinos-with-their-filthy-cheap-goods rhetoric in and around the Bernieverse is troubling. There are many kinds of Us-and-Them politics, and Bernie Sanders, to be sure, is not a national socialist in the mode of Alfred Rosenberg or Julius Streicher.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421369/bernies-strange-brew-nationalism-and-socialism-kevin-d-williamson