Skip to main content

Understanding Sanders, Warren And New England

If you lop off California and New England, you’ve got a pretty good country” – Barry Goldwater

To people who have been stung by socialism – ask any American refugee from Cuba, Venezuela, or any of the Baltic States that only recently have thrown off Soviet tyranny – there is not much difference between professed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Socialism has a long pedigree. The first socialist leader of a large Europe country was Chancellor of Germany Otto von Bismarck. Before Bismarck, Germany was a series of separate power centers, much like Italy before Camilo Cavour and Giuseppe Garibaldi. It was Bismarck who, through his realpolitik, formed modern Germany from the bits and pieces of an Austro-Hungarian empire, itself the shattered remnants of an earlier Holy Roman Empire.

German nationalism and Bismarckian socialism, largely a reaction to anti-monarchical socialists and anarchists, sprang from the same political font. Bismarck sought to subvert the reckless and borderless advance of socialism by offering Germans universal health care. Progressivism in the United States, stretching from the post- Civil War through the Great Depression, was socialism’s half-way house, a via media between communism at one end of the political spectrum and free market economics at the other end. Once one accepts the premises of progressivism, the transition to socialism becomes effortless. And socialism is, ideologically, the antechamber of communism, which is why Sanders felt so comfortable canoodling in 1985 with Latin American communists such as the Castro brothers of Cuba and the Ortega brothers of Nicaragua. Sanders honeymooned in the Soviet Union, which still lay under the shadow of Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the governing Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1964 until his death in 1982. Honeymoons are what happens after newlyweds are wed, and Sanders romanced the Soviet Union only six years after Brezhnev had assumed room temperature, while former President Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, glasnostian Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and others were laying cordite at the foot of the Marxist-Leninist failed experiment, following, let us not forget, Nikita Khrushchev’s debunking of the myth of Nietzschean superman Joseph Stalin.

Warren did not honeymoon in the Soviet Union, nor has she praised Latin American communist potentates. But she is waiting patiently in the antechamber. Like Sanders, she wants some form of a universal health care system – never mind how she plans to pay for it -- which will give the central government of the United States permanent control over an even larger chunk of the U.S. economy, a confiscatory tax on wealth, rather as if wealth were a social disease, and a limitless claim to the assets of the American public.

Progressivism is an effort to make the world over by confiscating wealth and redistributing it – without regard for limitations set by constitutions or the reasonable vetoes of common sense – and then distributing the appropriated wealth not to the poor, as Marx suggested, “from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs,” but rather to factional political groups that keep deceptive politicians in power. When progressives imagine MORE, they also spin emotionally pleasing narratives in which MORE is presumptively beneficial for the general run of humanity. There comes a point, however, in which quantitative changes trigger a qualitative change – a tipping point at which progressivism becomes socialism and socialism becomes communism.

Why do progressives and false supermen quote Nietzsche to their own purposes and forget his fearful warnings? “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.”

True witnesses to the 20th century --possibly the most murderous in history -- who have lived their lives with their eyes open are fully aware of the dangers of illusions, impossible dreams and bewitching narratives.

But what is the witness of history to romantic American progressives other than a mere impediment that may be overcome by appeals to the heart? It’s doubtful that the average Connecticut scholar graduating from Yale or UConn would recognize any of the heroic names cited above. Certainly they are not likely to meet the ghost of Solzhenitsyn in any recent news story outlining the ambitions of President of Russia Vladimir Putin. The Stalinization of Ukraine through famine does not even merit mention in stories detailing the annexation by Putin of Crimea, deeded to Ukraine by Khrushchev, Stalin’s Falstaff who, as a Ukrainian, suffered from a bad conscience when forced by Stalin to swallow the deaths by starvation of 8 to 10 million Ukrainians. Today in news reports, Ukraine serves only as a theater in which the son of a prospective U.S. President, former Vice President Joe Biden, got his plunder from a corrupt (read: Russianized) Ukraine.

For progressives, history matters not at all because, as Marx memorably put it, the purpose of communism is not to recall history – but to change it. That has been the chorus of the progressive itch to plow the past under and create the world anew. The thoroughgoing communist always has a Utopian  plan that ends with the wreck of Western civilization, after which comes the deluge.

Comments

Bob Perry said…
The real danger is this country is our corrupt racist sexist inept president who cares little about this country and only about himself. He has greatly worsened our national debt while catering to the rich. income inequality is greater in this country than in any other western democracy.
He constantly insults our allies while catering to dictators like Putin and Kim Jung-un,and MSD of Saudi Arabia.
He calls human induced climate change a hoax even though over 95% of the world scientists say it is occurring.
A re-election of Donald Trump would be a disaster for our country and for humanity.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p