A few days ago television
personality Bill Maher once more proved that his so-called “liberalism” is a
bit on the insubstantial side, all self-congratulatory show—and no tell. Previously,
he allowed Megyn Kelly to claim that the “problem” with Fox News was only about
Bill O’Reilly, failing to force her to answer for her own culpability in the
network’s far-right and racist ideology. Maher as always failed to do his “homework,”
when all he had to do was watch John Oliver’s montage of clips of Kelly’s
commentary while at Fox. Maher is certainly no Gore Vidal, who famously engaged
in “friendly” ideological debates with William F. Buckley—although back when a
conservative like Buckley seemed more like a “moderate” compared to today’s
version, and he actually tried to make a
rational case for his views.
This time Maher took on Steve
Bannon, formerly the editor of the far-right conspiracy mouthpiece Breitbart. Given
the fact that sarcasm is not an “argument,” it was predictably more like his
own takedown; Maher’s complete inability to formulate responses to counter
Bannon’s obviously fraudulent far-right claims is frankly typical of those who
haven’t really thought out their own positions; simply “disliking” something from
the gut is not the same as a carefully thought out argument against what you
don’t like. Bannon made Maher look like an empty vessel with nothing more to
work with than his “attitude.” If I was Donald Trump, I’d consent to be
interviewed by Maher just to show how a so-called “liberal” can be used to
discredit his opponents on the left (or anywhere else).
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders
has spent over half a century honing his “socialist” message for anyone who
will listen. It has to be emphasized that the “socialism” that Sanders espouses
is basically the same one that is practiced in most countries in western and
northern Europe—even in those countries which have had conservative governments—countries
that are more “civilized” than the U.S. Sanders views are not a “fantasy,” but
a hard look at reality. Just take the issue of healthcare; this country faces a
continuing widening of wealth disparity in which it is perfectly reasonable to
expect that at some point in the future, healthcare costs will be so great that
only those of means can afford to pay the premiums and co-pays that will get
them adequate care. Why not get ahead of the game? Why wait until things get so
bad that nothing can be done? Have the courage to take on a long-term plan that
will eventually “phase out” for-profit private insurance as the principle
source of healthcare coverage. It is the smart thing to do.
But not if you listen to
anti-Sanders fanatics who claim to be “liberal,” like MSNBC’s Chuck Todd; I
mean, just low can low get? To the obvious discomfort of those sharing the
table with him, Todd breathlessly referred to an opinion piece in a far-right
website few ever heard of written by some far-right talking head named Jonathan
Last: “Hey I want to bring up something that Jonathan Last put in the Bulwark
today. It was about how—and Ruth, we've all been on the receiving end of the
Bernie online brigade—here's what he says: He says 'no other candidate has
anything like this sort of digital brownshirt brigade. I mean, except for
Donald Trump.’ I know everybody's freaking out about this, but you saw the MAGA
rally that's prepared around here. There are people coming from three or four
states on that. That's real. This is like Bernie."
Enough is enough. It is more
obvious daily who is sowing “discord” amongst the Democrats, and the hypocrisy
is such that the “socialist” Elizabeth Warren has the undying support of those
who are attacking Sanders for his “socialism.”
It is clear that there is still a great deal of bitterness against Sanders for being
“responsible” for Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016, as if Sanders had anything
to do with her defeat in 2008. This comparing Sanders to Trump has gone too far
enough, but comparing his supporters to Nazi Stormtroopers is stepping over a
line that will go far in alienating his supporters against whoever is the
eventual Democratic candidate if not Sanders. It was a smart move on Joe Biden’s
part to tell ABC News' George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday that he would “work
like hell” for Sanders if he is nominated, because he will need the support of
Sanders’ “digital brownshirts” if he is
nominated. On the other hand, Amy Klobuchar was the only candidate who
expressed an unwillingness to support a “socialist” nominee at last Friday’s
debate, and it is good for her that she has almost no shot at winning the
Democratic nomination.
And one other thing: one gets a
sense of déjà vu with all this backstabbing of Sanders in the media. Didn’t we
see this played out in 2016, when outside a few fanatics who approved of Trump’s
racist and anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric, even Fox News and Republicans were
calling for Trump’s defeat? Sanders is no wallflower; the harder the “liberal”
media tries to defeat him if he is nominated, the more some of those “what
about me” working class voters (particularly in the Midwest) will wonder what
Sanders actually stands for, and when they find out, they will do something
that Hillary Clinton claimed would not happen: they will “like” what he stands
for, and see the media as merely being against their interests as it was in
2016. Sanders clearly has the moral and ethical high ground, and there is every
reason to believe that enough voters who are uncomfortable with Trump’s increasingly
insane sense of power will have seen enough of him.
No comments:
Post a Comment