David Brooks never ceases to annoy. In his Friday column he announces that he cannot vote for Sanders or Trump. He throws into the column his recollections of Soviet Union horrors including 20 million people killed. He argues that Sanders has made excuses for authoritarian regimes like that of Fidel Castro. To be sure, Sanders has noted that Castro did some good things. But Sanders has criticized the authoritarian aspects of that and other regimes.
There is absolutely no evidence that Sanders would undermine civil liberties. None. And to parade the Soviet Union’s atrocities is utterly irresponsible.
Beyond that Brooks maintains that Sanders has been ineffective in the legislature and that he embraces a populism that is hostile to liberalism. He accuses Sanders of lacking reasonableness, compassion, and optimism. He suggests that he exhibits an incessant hatred for his foes.
The column is filled with hyperbole. On the latter point, it seems to me that Sanders has stuck to the issues in the debates and has not exhibited a hatred of his opponents, incessant or otherwise. I do not support Sanders, but Brooks’ column is a disgrace.
I do not mind the claim that both Trump and Sanders support a form of populism. In the case of Sanders, there is no reason to hope or fear that his populist proposals will become law. Even if the Democrats win the House and Senate, and even if the filibuster is eliminated, there are too many not-so-liberal Democrats who will block his proposals.
In the case of Trump, if reelected, however, we will face a politicized Justice Department, a compromised intelligence community, an incompetent and corrupt administration, a politics that threatens the rule of law and respect for just values, a foreign policy that furthers the interests of Putin, an administration that substitutes selfish, wishful, and narcissistic thinking for science and the facts, and an administration that locks children in cages and tries to take health care from millions without compassion. If reelected, we will have a President who on a daily basis exhibits an incessant hatred of his critics and opponents, knows next to nothing about foreign policy, is unwilling to learn from the intelligence community, and engages in spectacularly foolish foreign policy judgments that are guided by his untutored intuitions, intuitions that are often fueled by rage. No one in their right mind appropriately trusts this man with nuclear weapons.
For David Brooks to say that he can’t choose between Sanders and Trump is appalling. In so doing, he joins the Sanders supporters who say they will take their marbles and stay home if Sanders does not get the nomination. Any such invocation of ideological purity is simply inhumane.
Thanks Steve. I would interpret Klion's threat here as a way to warn the Party heavyweights not to use the superdelegates to deny Sanders the nomination should he earn it. Perhaps he will do has he says, but I find it hard to believe his followers on Twitter will all follow suit. I think what Sanders supporters are trying to say is that they want the Party leaders to take their votes seriously, but when push comes to shove, they'll vote for any Democratic nominee (save, perhaps Bloomberg) against Trump. I don't know of any Sanders supporters who talk like Klion. And whatever harm Stein caused last election, I don't believe it was the same as loosing all those former Democrats (working class, poor and otherwise, including some rural voters) to Trump who fell for his rhetoric about re-industrialization, economic revitalization, etc. The Party needs to respect the collective voice of this younger generation of Sanders supporters: if they do not they will be responsible for the outcome.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | 02/29/2020 at 10:53 PM
Patrick, from David Klion, an editor at Jewish Currents who has written for The Nation, The New York Times, The Guardian, and other publications on twitter (Feb. 27), "If Bernie has a plurality of delegates and votes and superdelegates deny him the nomination, I’m staying home, and I’m sure a lot of other people will too. Party leaders should be aware of this now so they can factor it into their decision." Twitter, Klion has 60,000 followers on Twitter. Ruth Graham reported in Slate that only 53% of Sanders voters in New Hampshire say they will definitely support the Democratic nominee if it is not Sanders. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/will-bernie-sanders-fans-only-vote-for-bernie.html
In addition, I know of other Sanders voters who take a similar position. I do not believe that Sanders takes this position, and I do know what percentage of Sanders votes take this position. Moreover, I think that as time passes whatever the number is, it will dwindle as the election approaches. Still Jill Stein received close to 1.5 million votes in 2016. The number could be significant.
Posted by: Steve Shiffrin | 02/29/2020 at 10:07 PM
Steve, I have not learned of these "Sanders supporters who say they will take their marbles and stay home if Sanders does not get the nomination." Can you provide some references for me? (Despite being a Sanders supporter, I have refrained until now from commenting on your remarks about him but this one in particular surprised and disappointed me.)
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | 02/29/2020 at 05:45 AM