Seattle Sports Insider

Konspiracy Korner - Feel the Bern

my little blonde college niece and Sanders - what a match

Posted by

2/5/16

You might or might not have grok'ked that Dr. D follows today's politics much less than you do. He believes that he is well oriented on the issues, but not up-to-date on what this or that politician is arguing on the issues. So this KK stub is more in the nature of a plea for education. :- )

Bill O'Reilly is a fiery guy, but much more independent than the media represents him. He seems to have no particular bone to pick with socialism, certainly nothing like the ire that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have against socialism. (I couldn't even tell you whether our Constitution speaks to the issues of caplitalism vs. socialism; maybe Mojician can help with that.)

O'Reilly seems to have absolutely nothing against Bernie Sanders except that --- > O'Reilly insists that the entire campaign is a straight-up dog and pony show. The media angers him because it is "playing along" with a "phony deal." (I've listened to six or eight O'Reilly shows in the last year.) From his standpoint, the DNC would never allow Sanders to run as their nominee and the New York Times knows this very well. If anything happens to Hillary, and by "anything" they seem to mean the FBI, then the DNC goes and gets Biden or Bloomberg or somebody.

Which, if true, would indeed make Sanders' campaign a kind of farce.

Q1: Is that true, that Sanders' campaign is not really a legit one from the DNC's and NYT's paradigms?

Q2: If it were true, why would the DNC push him up front? Perhaps to move socialism forward a bit this cycle, or to underline Hillary as a tough competitor, or ... ?

....

Those friends of mine who are Republicans -- I'm not one -- view this as perhaps true in the beginning, but that Sanders has become "the pony from the River Styx." They see Sanders' grassroots support as spinning madly out of control from the DNC's standpoint.

I don't understand this support. That doesn't mean, "I think the support is illogical." I mean, it is opaque to me why the average college kid is so powerfully attracted to Sanders. I'd like to know why. I know for a fact the New York Times won't tell me; fortunately, I have you guys to tell me. :- )

My friends also see Bernie Sanders as a very sincere politician. They believe in fact that he was ineffective as a Senator precisely because he wouldn't play ball with the power brokers. If THAT's true, to me it undercuts the New York Times' relentless argument that the Clintons never do anything that every other politician doesn't do. In any case, Sanders seems an authentic and admirable American politician from a sincerity standpoint. (Maybe you feel that Bill and Hillary are actually quite straightforward and honest people. If so, please make your case.)

Q3: Why is Sanders, who is three times my niece's age, so appealing to her? Why do young left-wingers like him so much?

It can't ONLY be the idea of redistributing older persons' money back to the kids. Most U.S. college kids in the U.S. in 2016, by "equality" would mean that if you have an iPhone 6, I shouldn't be struggling along with an iPhone 5. (Do YOU know anybody without a smartphone, a piece of pizza, and wall-to-wall carpeting?) It's not like there's a raw nerve of poverty and squallor to which Bernie is playing some kind of modern Che Guevara. Young people today IN FACT HAVE cake, Ms. Antoinette. I thought the conditions had to be worse than this before the commoners stormed the Bastille?

It seems greatly to their credit, that 18-30 year olds would look past Sanders' curmudgeonly appearance and support him thoughtfully based on the issues. Dr. D honestly thought, in the age of TV, that a person had to be good-looking and cool to be President. Well, you know what I mean.

If I had to *guess,* it would be that Sanders represents a overall left-wing platform that is coming from a place of authenticity - and that a whole lot of young Democrats are quite disaffected with Hillary. This would, in turn, mean that the RNC and DNC have underestimated Americans' resentment in being viewed as gullible. That the real raw nerve being drilled, is voters' demand for authenticity. That's a cheery thought!

But that is only an impression. ... come to think of it, do any of the TV analysts have anything more than that? ;- )

Would appreciate any insight you might have.

Bemused,

Jeff

Blog:

Tags:

Bernie Sanders

Comments

2 Quick Soundbites

Awesome discussion...again. I wish I could contribute more, but all I have are soundbites. I appreciate the talk in these KK topics - keep 'em coming.

Sound Bite #1: Special Interest money is good! Yes, I said that. I do not have a vested interest in the outcome of every single issue, but I have a few that are exceptionally important to me. By definition, that means they are my special interests. If I can donate money to groups that can help get my message out and influence or persuade, how is that a bad thing? Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Influence our representatives and other voters? it gets corrupted because the system gets clumsy without good moral motivations - exacty what the founders were cautious about...which leads me to.........

Sound Bite #2: The utopians formed this government because they knew the evil that mankind is capable of and the temptations that come with power. I would not call them utopians at all; if anything, they were looking at a way to have a 3-way unwinnable tug of war by creating 3 branches that would tug as hard as they could, but hopefully never take the "cloth" away from the circle of liberty and freedom. Not utopia, but certainly the best experiment so far.

Again, just sound bites. Being a 52-year old student with a full time family and full time plus job makes it harder contribute here than I used to, but keep it up guys. Great stuff - from diverse viewpoints. Love it.

I'll partner that

though not as silently as I should :- )

utopia anti-matter

Although utopian ideals were still very much intellectually important in the 18^th century, I think our Founding Fathers were well aware that trying to institute a fully baked utopian system of government was a futile exercise. There are aspects of human nature, evil and greed among them, that are certainly fatal to utopian schemes, but utopia is impossible even if one could eliminate those aspects. The concept of utopia presumes that all values, all ultimate moral ends, are not only the same for everyone, at all times and in all places, but that they also fit together neatly and rationally without conflict, and we know (or at least I believe) that neither of these things are true. Because individuals assign differing weights/priorities to ultimate values, and because some ultimate values conflict, there is no discoverable “Correct” solution. Just look at the comments in these fascinating KK dialogues – two commenters debate how much happiness is desirable and whether some pain and suffering is maybe not such a bad thing. If we can’t agree on happiness as a goal, or even how much happiness is appropriate or beneficial as a goal, or what it is that actually achieves happiness, how can we ever agree on anything? Well, we just have to work it out, and that is the brilliance of our system of government. It requires discussion and dialogue; no one faction can force its conception of values or goals on another. Whatever degrades this aspect of our government weakens and corrupts it.

Question about values

"Because individuals assign differing weights/priorities to ultimate values, and because some ultimate values conflict, there is no discoverable “Correct” solution"

I have a simple question about this: why not? If your were wrong about this, how would you know?

good questions

Ok, good questions. Here is how I look at it (and here’s hoping that this makes some sense). Take as an example Justice and Mercy. Both are valid ultimate moral ends, but you dispense one at the expense of the other. So you are forced into a choice – it can be 100% for one and 0% for the other, or somewhere in between, but the choice is there. So what is the utopian rule for making this choice? Remember, this has to be a universal rule, valid in all times and in all places and situations, reference to which always produces only one possible answer, which by definition is the Right Answer, the Truth. How is it possible to fashion a universal rule like this, in effect a formula or algorithm that never fails? One can appeal to higher authority, the xyz religious/moral code, although even that doesn’t always offer bright line solutions. Furthermore, there are quite few different religious and moral codes around, so how do you decide which one represents the utopian Truth? Another choice. So, really, it is a bit of a mess, but somehow we have to sort it out, peacefully, I hope. What we should never allow happen is the forcing of someone’s Truth on the rest of us.