Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Bernie’s Charmed Political Life Masks His Ideological Extremism

Bernie’s surge in Iowa and his steadfast core of support nationwide mask his extreme left-wing views. Most political reporting, after all, is focused on the competitive horserace and not on matters of substantive public policy. This has resulted in the norming or legitimization of Bernie’s far-left ideas, as voters are led to believe that the Vermont senator is just the latest in a long line of conventional Democratic presidential frontrunners.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Bernie, remember, is an avowed socialist fully committed to the redistribution of wealth, punishing and punitive rates of taxation, government control and coercion, public-sector monopolies, and American military withdrawal and retreat.

In short, Bernie is no JFK. He isn’t even Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. How, then, did we arrive at this improbable and frightening moment where Bernie has become a bona fide presidential frontrunner who might well capture the Democratic presidential nomination and perhaps even the Presidency of the United States?

In an illuminating piece published today, National Review’s Jim Geraghty helps answer this question. Bernie, Geraghty points out, has led a charmed political life marked by incredible luck and a series of one unlikely success after another.

For example, Bernie first ran for office “in late 1971 because he volunteered and no one else did… He received one percent of the vote,” but gained valuable political experience. “In 1980, when he first ran for mayor of the town [of Burlington, Vermont, Bernie] won by 10 votes over a wildly overconfident five-term incumbent who ‘hardly bothered to campaign.’

“…In 1988,” Geraghty notes, Bernie “ran for Vermont’s open U.S. House seat and lost, in what could have been the end of his political career.” But alas, he ran again two years later in a six-way race.

The incumbent, Republican Peter Smith, had changed his mind on the so-called assault-weapons ban, infuriating gun owners and their political leaders. This led to an endorsement of the then-independent Sanders by . . . NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. (“The gun vote brought us down,” Smith’s campaign manager later lamented.) Thus, with the help of the nation’s most powerful gun-rights group, Sanders was first elected to Congress. He’s been there ever since.

Yes, Bernie has been incredibly lucky. But as the old adage has it, you make your own luck. “Eighty percent of success is showing up,” explained Woody Allen.

Bernie has shown up, and he has competed politically, often when no one else would. Consequently, he is today knocking on the door to the Democratic presidential nomination, and he may well push the door open in Iowa Feb. 3. We’ll see.

The Trump Resemblance. In this way, Bernie bears a striking political resemblance to Donald Trump, another extraordinarily lucky politician who won (in 2016) largely just by showing up and competing politically. But like Trump, Bernie has his own peculiar ideas that run crosscurrent to the political mainstream.

We don’t hear much about these ideas because political reporting is what it is, and because of the cult of personality that surrounds “The Bern.” But make no mistake: Bernie’s radical positions are the essence of who and what he is politically. And precisely because his ideas are ideologically moored and grounded, they threaten to radically disrupt American life in ways Trump never dreamed of or even thought possible.

Trump’s peculiarities, after all, are his utter and complete self-absorption and narcissistic personality disorder. Bernie’s peculiarities, by contrast, have nothing to do with personality and everything to do with ideology, and, for that reason, are arguably far more dangerous. We will feel the burn, indeed.

Imminence Is Irrelevant in Judging the Suleimani Strike

One of the most pointless policy debates ginned up of late by the anti-Trump media and Dems in Congress is whether an Iranian attack on U.S. interests was “imminent” prior to the U.S. military strike that took out Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. If such an attack was imminent, they say, then the U.S. military strike may have been justified; but if not, then the strike is probably illegal and Trump may have committed a war crime.

What this analysis ignores, of course, is that, regardless of whether such an attack was “imminent,” Iran has been waging war against the United States for the past 40 years, ever since its 1979 revolution and seizure of 52 American hostages.

Suleimani himself, moreover, had orchestrated the death of more than 600 Americans serving in Iraq for the past 16 years. Suleimani’s blood-stained record provided more than ample justification for targeting him while he was in Iraq plotting yet more terror attacks against American military personnel and civilian contractors.

Indeed, the U.S. military strike against Suleimani is best understood as a quick defensive measure taken when a moment of opportunity suddenly arose. Trump wisely seized upon this opportunity to free the world of a dangerous terrorist mastermind. A good deed and good riddance.

The Focus on Iran and Iraq Helps Bernie

With the Iowa Caucuses just three weeks away, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has surged into the lead, with a 20% share of the vote in a poll published Fri., Jan. 10, by the Des Moines Register, CNN and Mediacom.

It is not hard to discern why Bernie is surging. As the purest of the pure anti-war warriors in an anti-war (Democratic) party, Bernie is benefiting from the renewed focus on Iran and Iraq. The Washington Post‘s Michael Scherer reports:

“The targeted killing of a top Iranian military official on the orders of President thrust a long-simmering foreign policy divide to the forefront of the Democratic nomination fight Friday, exposing divisions about America’s role in the world just one month before voting begins.”

Joe Biden’s Vote for War,” intones The New York Times. The vote ominously referenced is Biden’s October 2002 vote to authorize U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein. As the Times explains:

“The vote has exposed him [Biden] to direct and implicit criticism from his chief presidential rivals, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a military veteran, and especially Senator Bernie Sanders, who voted against the war as a Vermont congressman and whose campaign has sharpened its criticism of Mr. Biden in recent days.

“Now, three weeks before the Iowa caucuses—held in a state with a fierce antiwar streak— the issue threatens to be a campaign liability for Mr. Biden as he seeks to assure voters of his ability to handle a foreign crisis even as he works to distance himself from a war that has had enormous costs for his own family, and for the nation.”

Ideology is very relevant and important in Iowa. In 2016, notes NBC News:

“More than two-thirds of Iowa Dem participants identified themselves as liberals… Twenty-eight percent said they were ‘very liberal,’ and Sanders won them [over Hillary] by nearly 20 points, 58 percent to 39 percent…

“A larger share—40 percent—said they were just ‘liberal,’ and Clinton narrowly beat Sanders among these voters, 50 percent to 44 percent.”

Politics is filled with irony, and one of the greatest ironies surely is this: A great wartime achievement, the killing of terrorist mastermind Qassem Suleimani, may lead to a great political victory in Iowa by a fervent isolationist and anti-interventionist, Bernie Sanders. More ironic still: it may lead to Bernie’s election as President of the United States.

The New York Times Censors Bret Stephens

To the Editor: I am disappointed that you deleted Bret Stephens’ reference (column, Dec. 27) to a 2005 academic study on the “Natural History of Ashkenazi [Jewish] Intelligence,” published in the Journal of Biosocial Science. In so doing, you betray the purpose of a great newspaper, which is to fearlessly search for truth regardless of the consequences.

You assert that the study’s authors “promoted racist views.” That may or may not be true. I’m skeptical that it is true, given how carelessly and promiscuously the charge of racism is hurled about; but either way, that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the study itself. In The New Republic, Harvard Psychology Professor Stephen Pinker found the study legitimate and worthy of consideration, not racist.

You worry that, by citing the study “uncritically” [sic], Stephens leaves the impression that he thinks “Jews are genetically superior.” Balderdash! In fact, Stephens leaves no such impression. He expressly argues that Jewish achievement stems from “habits of mind,” and not intelligence per se.

More importantly, should great newspapers be worried about impressions or reality, feelings or facts, sentiment or truth? Should you aspire to be thought-provoking or just a “safe space” for readers presumably too soft and tender to handle the truth? The New York Times appears to have chosen the latter approach, and America and the world are worse off because of it.

Feature photo credit: The New York Times.