Bernie Sanders must certainly qualify as one of the great political disappointments of the last few election cycles. A relative no-name, he purported to start a revolution built upon honesty, common sense, and a fresh perspective. As with our upcoming national Presidential election, the Democratic primaries were binary. Democrats were given two choices: fresh and revolutionary (Sanders) or established and safe (Clinton). Clinton, who has traditionally played the part of the moderate, tried to appear progressive (thereby showing that she will play any part necessary to advance herself), but everyone knew who she is--the establishment favorite. I have no desire to comment on the exposed corruption within the DNC or Sander's policies. Today I want to discuss his so-called revolution.
Sanders is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist (the "democratic" doesn't mitigate the "socialist" nearly as much as one would hope), so in a sense, his presidency would bring a significant level of revolution. The change would be more drastic than incremental, at least by Washington standards. At the same time, policies with socialistic undertones--public education, welfare assistance programs, Obamacare--show that Bernie's revolution has been underway for a century in this country. Power has been recentralizing at the Federal level since before the ink dried on the Constitution. There were always warring factions in this country. The Federalists and the Antifederalists were waging essentially the same battle we are now. The only difference is that the our Federalist forefathers would stand mouth agape at the sight of the policies of even our modern conservative, small-government legislators.
What we need to remember is that government is not a living organism, any more than the Constitution or the Supreme Court. Government is made up of individuals, and what those individuals indubitably share in common is human nature. Human nature is a tricky thing. It tends to crave a few basic things: money, power, influence, etc. The Apostle John puts it this way:
That is why I was significantly short of surprised when I saw that Bernie Sanders had endorsed Hillary. It was not simply the correct healthcare choice; it was also the "smart" career choice. A man of principle, such as Ted Cruz, would have stood against an opponent he truly viewed as personifying the evils of the establishment. Bernie Sanders, however, is a career politician. His degree is in, of course, political science. He has been active in politics since college, never establishing any other career (one of the many differences between him and Ron Paul). A relative outsider, he still knows the ins and outs of the political game. Calling him a political outsider is about the same thing as saying that, let's see, Donald Trump is a political outsider. Sanders has had basically one job for 40 years--getting himself reelected. So when it was apparent that his revolution had faltered, I expected nothing less than pandering to the establishment. Maybe he'll garner himself an appointment to a cabinet position (running for President again is out of the question). Maybe he'll just retain the support of the Democratic Party. Whatever the case may be, he's shown that his status as an independent is questionable and his revolutionary thinking is far less revolutionary than he led us to believe.
Here's the bottom line. The problem with political revolutions is that they always end up back where they begin. As the old adage goes, the more things change, the more they say the same. Remember the French Revolution. The French traded an overbearing monarchy for an unstable, bloodthirsty democracy, which was, in turn, replaced by a dictatorship. What about Rome's Republic? What happened there?Does the name Julius Caesar ring a bell? Yeah, that didn't go so well. As the Preacher said, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Politically speaking, the human race has always been divided between the sheep and the wolves. There are those who wish to live simple, easy-going lives and there are those who wish to tell those people exactly how they're allowed to do that. Periods of relative liberty have typically been transient and regional. So when Barry Sanders promised to start a revolution (for the record, I didn't want his revolution anyhow), I didn't really believe him. Maybe he believed he could change America, but he probably wouldn't have. Change is both constant and fleeting. Today's changes will be altered tomorrow. Political revolutions come and go. While a few shape history, most, especially the Socialistic type, stir up unrest for a while and then fade into obscurity, leaving only their negative side effects in their wake.
Bernie Sanders' revolution is no different. His revolution was so transitory that it never really even existed. His priorities have shown themselves. A political idealist (as every revolutionary must be), who really meant everything he said about Hillary Clinton, would...no...could have never endorsed her. His resolve was less than revolutionary. Maybe he meant some of the things he said. Maybe revolution was simply his tactic to garner votes (it worked for Obama, after all). Who knows. When the dust settled, he was revealed as exactly what he claimed he was fighting--another cog in the machine. He's just another politician doing what he has to do to advance his personal career and well-being. There's certainly nothing revolutionary about that.
One final note. There is only one revolution that has and will continue to have lasting effects on this Universe. There is only one Revolutionary who truly changed the world in an indelible way. His name is King Jesus. His Kingdom, unlike France and Rome and America, is not of this world. He was not motivated by worldly fame, fortune, or power, but by love for His Father and His people and a Kingdom that transcends this world. His Kingdom was not established by weapons of warfare, but by the truth. Politician revolutionaries are often viewed as Messianic figures. Jesus is the Messiah--the Christ, the Anointed One! His crown and Kingdom will endure forever. His revolution will carry on into eternity.
Sanders is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist (the "democratic" doesn't mitigate the "socialist" nearly as much as one would hope), so in a sense, his presidency would bring a significant level of revolution. The change would be more drastic than incremental, at least by Washington standards. At the same time, policies with socialistic undertones--public education, welfare assistance programs, Obamacare--show that Bernie's revolution has been underway for a century in this country. Power has been recentralizing at the Federal level since before the ink dried on the Constitution. There were always warring factions in this country. The Federalists and the Antifederalists were waging essentially the same battle we are now. The only difference is that the our Federalist forefathers would stand mouth agape at the sight of the policies of even our modern conservative, small-government legislators.
What we need to remember is that government is not a living organism, any more than the Constitution or the Supreme Court. Government is made up of individuals, and what those individuals indubitably share in common is human nature. Human nature is a tricky thing. It tends to crave a few basic things: money, power, influence, etc. The Apostle John puts it this way:
For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.Unless a person is driven by a higher purpose, these things will drive him/her, regardless of that person's political ideology (claimed or hidden).
That is why I was significantly short of surprised when I saw that Bernie Sanders had endorsed Hillary. It was not simply the correct healthcare choice; it was also the "smart" career choice. A man of principle, such as Ted Cruz, would have stood against an opponent he truly viewed as personifying the evils of the establishment. Bernie Sanders, however, is a career politician. His degree is in, of course, political science. He has been active in politics since college, never establishing any other career (one of the many differences between him and Ron Paul). A relative outsider, he still knows the ins and outs of the political game. Calling him a political outsider is about the same thing as saying that, let's see, Donald Trump is a political outsider. Sanders has had basically one job for 40 years--getting himself reelected. So when it was apparent that his revolution had faltered, I expected nothing less than pandering to the establishment. Maybe he'll garner himself an appointment to a cabinet position (running for President again is out of the question). Maybe he'll just retain the support of the Democratic Party. Whatever the case may be, he's shown that his status as an independent is questionable and his revolutionary thinking is far less revolutionary than he led us to believe.
Here's the bottom line. The problem with political revolutions is that they always end up back where they begin. As the old adage goes, the more things change, the more they say the same. Remember the French Revolution. The French traded an overbearing monarchy for an unstable, bloodthirsty democracy, which was, in turn, replaced by a dictatorship. What about Rome's Republic? What happened there?Does the name Julius Caesar ring a bell? Yeah, that didn't go so well. As the Preacher said, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Politically speaking, the human race has always been divided between the sheep and the wolves. There are those who wish to live simple, easy-going lives and there are those who wish to tell those people exactly how they're allowed to do that. Periods of relative liberty have typically been transient and regional. So when Barry Sanders promised to start a revolution (for the record, I didn't want his revolution anyhow), I didn't really believe him. Maybe he believed he could change America, but he probably wouldn't have. Change is both constant and fleeting. Today's changes will be altered tomorrow. Political revolutions come and go. While a few shape history, most, especially the Socialistic type, stir up unrest for a while and then fade into obscurity, leaving only their negative side effects in their wake.
Bernie Sanders' revolution is no different. His revolution was so transitory that it never really even existed. His priorities have shown themselves. A political idealist (as every revolutionary must be), who really meant everything he said about Hillary Clinton, would...no...could have never endorsed her. His resolve was less than revolutionary. Maybe he meant some of the things he said. Maybe revolution was simply his tactic to garner votes (it worked for Obama, after all). Who knows. When the dust settled, he was revealed as exactly what he claimed he was fighting--another cog in the machine. He's just another politician doing what he has to do to advance his personal career and well-being. There's certainly nothing revolutionary about that.
One final note. There is only one revolution that has and will continue to have lasting effects on this Universe. There is only one Revolutionary who truly changed the world in an indelible way. His name is King Jesus. His Kingdom, unlike France and Rome and America, is not of this world. He was not motivated by worldly fame, fortune, or power, but by love for His Father and His people and a Kingdom that transcends this world. His Kingdom was not established by weapons of warfare, but by the truth. Politician revolutionaries are often viewed as Messianic figures. Jesus is the Messiah--the Christ, the Anointed One! His crown and Kingdom will endure forever. His revolution will carry on into eternity.
Comments
Post a Comment