Skip to main content

3 Reasons Why the Democrats Should Not Nominate Bernie Sanders; or 3 Reasons Why the Republicans Should Hope the Democrats Nominate Bernie Sanders

It's that time again!  It's that abysmal season when you can't stand anyone on Facebook and you can't avoid attack ads on TV and radio!  It's election season!

This time around it's the Democrat's turn to put their best man or woman forward in an effort to unseat the Republican incumbent, Donald Trump.  Trump's tenure has been tumultuous, to put it mildly, but at least it's been entertaining!  The Democratic candidates are all framing their campaigns around one goal--defeating Trump.  Surging towards the front of the pack is the Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.  Despite, or perhaps because of, his idiosyncrasies, Sanders has gained notoriety, particularly winning the hearts of our nation's youth, and posing a viable threat to the status quo in the Democratic party.

I am not a Democrat (nor am I a Republican), but I would like to offer them some advice, especially the young voters.  Don't do it!  Do not nominate Bernie Sanders.  "Why?" you ask (or maybe you didn't).  Well, here's why.

1) He's full Commie.  I know, I know.  He's a Democratic Socialist.  That is entirely different, we are told.  He's not a socialist or a communist or a fascist.  Those are all mean words people use to discredit him, they say.  Bernie Sanders is a man of the people!  Let me tell you something, kids.  Semantics is a political tool and Democratic Socialist is just a palatable way to say Commie. 

'Murica!

Seriously though, nobody starts out as a full-blown Commie.  Nobody starts out as an avowed Fascist.  Socialism and Communism, no matter the iteration, naturally lead to fascism, as demonstrated by the history that our public education system in America (itself fundamentally Socialistic) failed to (or rather intended not to) teach you.

Adolph Hitler.  Joseph Stalin.  Benito Mussolini.  Look up those names.  Study their lives, their beliefs, and their history-altering actions.  They were all Socialists.  None of those men rose to power by saying that they were going to kill millions of people and strip their citizens of their inalienable rights.  They called for equality and fairness.  They championed social justice and fomented class warfare.

Bernie Sanders is hiding behind the term Democratic Socialist, but he has not hidden his agenda.  He intends to alter the economic, political, and cultural landscape of this nation in a fundamental way.  I believe he is genuine, or at least he was at one time.  That is what makes him so dangerous.  He is religiously progressive.  He believes that the basic tenets of Americanism, our prized ideals of individual liberty, private property, etc. are evils that need to be corrected.  You'd think that a Polish Jew, someone whose family was directly impacted by the Nazis in WW2, would know the evils of Socialism and her sister philosophies, but some people refuse to learn from history.

Bernie Sanders is full Commie.  Never go full Commie.

2) He's economically illiterate.  If you have no problem with Sanders' radical political ideologies, perhaps you will consider how disastrous his economic policies would be.  If you've watched any of the debates, you should know that Bernie Sanders is unfamiliar with the basic concepts of economics.  A career politician who is now a millionaire, he lives in an artificial world where consequences for economic decisions are rare. 

There are two fundamental economic principles of which Bernie Sanders is ignorant (or which he willfully ignores).  The first is that resources are scarce.  Time, energy, money, etc. are all limited.  There simply isn't enough of everything in the world to provide everything that everybody wants.  That's the real world and we simply have to deal with it.  The study of economics aims to discern how to utilize our limited resources in the most efficient way.  Certainly there are ethical concerns to consider, but economics is fundamentally about how to use the resources we have efficiently.  When we use our resources efficiently, both as individuals and as a nation, we prosper, which is why free market capitalism is the true path to distributing wealth fairly.  This is the fundamental flaw of Socialism, economically speaking.  Big government can never lead to prosperity because big government is inherently inefficient.  Bernie Sanders just keeps on making promises to give people free stuff, but, as the old saying goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch.  His economic policies are only plausible in a fantasy world.

The second economic principle that Bernie Sanders ignores is that it takes money (capital) to make money (profit).  He talks about taxing the rich to pay for his programs, but what happens when he taxes rich people out of existence?  History demonstrates that raising tax rates often reduces overall tax revenue, so not only will Bernie's spending policies cost us money, but his taxing policies will reduce the revenue he intends to use to pay for his expensive programs.

This principle is particularly true when you tax those people who have demonstrated a proficiency in handling money.  Removing money from the hands of those who use it most productively doesn't just hurt the upper classes; it hurts everyone.  Prosperity is not a zero-sum game.  In other words, financial transactions do not have to have a winner and a loser.  When entrepreneurs create products and develop new ideas, everyone wins!  When the free market allows us to purchase what we want from whom we want, our economy is efficient and everybody benefits.  When you remove the capital necessary to develop new products and ideas, everybody suffers.  This is not a theoretical exercise.  Look no further than 20th century Europe and you will see that punishing ambition is one of the fastest ways to destroy an economy.

Bernie Sanders' economic policies would be nothing short of disastrous.  When CNN thinks your economic policies are too far to the left, you know you have a problem!

3) He'll never win.  I could be wrong, but I don't think that America is quite ready for Bernie Sanders (I hope and pray that we never are).  Heck, even the Democratic elites aren't ready for Bernie, which is why they blackballed him the first time around.  He's the Ron Paul of the Democratic party.  Ron Paul was the one true conservative in a field of moderate Republicans, and nobody would support him.  He was the one candidate who wanted to return the Republican party to her moors of fiscal responsibility and liberty, so his own party silenced him.  I think Bernie Sanders will suffer the same fate.

Moreover, even if Bernie does win the nomination, I think he will lose the general election, and it won't even be close.  If you thought that the Boomers came out to vote against Hillary, wait until you see how they come out to vote against a Commie!  Again, I could be wrong.  Maybe people hate Trump enough to cast their vote for a candidate who is an avowed Socialist.  Maybe Trump has paved the way for Sanders' ascent in the same way that Hillary made Trump possible.  Americans are chronically over-reactionary, so anything is possible, I but wholeheartedly believe that Trump's campaign would capitalize (pun intended) on Sanders' sketchy past and his radical agenda to scare voters away from Sanders.

Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination would be bad for Democrats.  Bernie Sanders winning the general election would be bad for everyone.  The only person who would benefit is Bernie Sanders.

Behold, Socialism.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary