Reply With Quote
Is it Bernie Sander's socialism that makes him "middle of the road", or is that just a convenient rhetorical prop?
How Many Senators Are More Liberal than the Socialist One?
from Cato @ Liberty by David Boaz2 people liked this
By David Boaz
In a profile of the poetry-reading chief of staff to Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), the Washington Post calls Sanders not only “the only socialist in the U.S. Congress,” but also “surely [the Senate's] most liberal [member].” Surely. I mean, he’s a socialist, right? (And by the way, that isn’t a label that Sanders rejects.)
Well, maybe not. According to the National Taxpayers Union, 42 senators in 2008 voted to spend more tax dollars than socialist Bernie Sanders. They include his neighbor Pat Leahy; Californians Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who just can’t understand why their home state is in fiscal trouble; and the Eastern Seaboard anti-taxpayer Murderers’ Row of Kerry, Dodd, Lieberman, Clinton, Schumer, Lautenberg, Menendez, Carper, Biden, Cardin, and Mikulski. Don’t carry cash on Amtrak! Not to mention Blanche Lambert Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, who apparently think Arkansans don’t pay taxes so federal spending is free. Sen. Barack Obama didn’t vote often enough to get a rating in 2008, but in 2007 he managed to be one of the 11 senators who voted for more spending than the socialist senator.
Meanwhile, the American Conservative Union rated 11 senators more liberal than Sanders in 2008, including Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, and again the georgraphically confused Mark Pryor. The Republican Liberty Caucus declared 14 senators, including Sanders, to have voted 100 percent anti-economic freedom in 2008, though Sanders voted better than 31 colleagues in support of personal liberties. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action provides more support for the Post’s claim, rating Sanders 100 percent liberal. Most raters, though, don’t see it that way. In this compilation of ratings from left-leaning interest groups, 17 senators get higher scores than Sanders.
It almost seems that an avowed socialist is middle-of-the-road among Senate Democrats.
Is it Bernie Sander's socialism that makes him "middle of the road", or is that just a convenient rhetorical prop?
Really. After a le like that, you actually read it?
It was pretty short.
Unfortunately, it wasn't short enough to keep it from being convoluted.
Pretty much right on...(or is that left on?)
...and nothing anyone here shouldn't already know.
Just stating the public record, that everyone has access to.
...and so it goes.
I've always thought that within the current state of the Democrats and relatively to the Obama Administration, Bernie Sanders was pretty moderate.
snc really is re ed. Like mentally disabled. You guys shouldn't seriously respond to threads that are incoherent and exist to pimp the 'ideas' of think tanks. This moron might think he's not as dumb as he is.
Sanders comes from New England village democracy as much as anything else.
Is it "socialist" to oppose a federal government bailout of large financial services firms?
And if I had to guess, Sanders probably doesn't get a 'most liberal' ranking due to his views on firearms ownership.
Further, what a clueless ing political culture we live in when everything is black or white, either or, us v them, or 1 or 0. Our politics are mapped in a linear fashion, otherwise the majority of the country would be unable to understand. "Liberal" on the far left end of the line and "conservative" on the far right end. That there might be other viewpoints is beyond the comprehension level of most Americans.
Not to mention the usage of the term liberal itself, which has been bas ized for some time.
You said Mao did alot of good to the ones who survived.
Well, I think labels are often misapplied. Our ultra-liberal democrats do go way past socialism. Never really followed Sanders, but I have though of him as a European style socialist. These democrats in congress, I think, have become so authoritarian, they don't believe in personal freedoms for us serf. They only talk as if they care. The bottom line for them, seems obvious to me, that they do whatever they can for more power. I see them as only ultra-leftist, to appeal to as many minority groups as possible, in an attempt to control the outcome in elections, to their favor.
I see them however, as the harbinger of death for the America we all love.
You mean the nationalistic, socialistic one you love.
Keep yer authoritarian socialism off mah Medikare!
My arguments may lead to an appearance of that, but that would be because I usually end up arguing against the radical left. There are bad parts of what you are calling nationalism, but I don't see them as near the threat as I do authoritarian liberalism.
Or, you don't recognize this nation as it is. Grafting the notion of the Republic of old on the current warfare-welfare state didn't take.
The amusing thing is that "conservatives" have some things in common with the socialist Senator from Vermont which are core ideals. Be it skepticism or outright hostility towards TARP and the Federal Reserve, support for 2nd amendment rights, and support for the family farm.
Assuming linearity for the spectrum of American political ideology is a mistake, IMO. Or, the linearity between the two points of "socialism" and "freedom" or what not. The line to draw is between the people or localities and the big guvmint-big bidness orgy.
Further, since when is socialism liberalism? Or, do the heirs to classical liberalism miss the distinction?
Bush was a socialist too.
By the standards of the day, yes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
