The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Debate: Who Hates America More?

Posted on | February 12, 2016 | 55 Comments

“Our elites are fixated on how disappointed they are with the tawdry public precisely because that allows them to avoid examining their own colossal failures.”
— Ace of Spades, 2011

Ed Driscoll quoted Ace in the context of reminding us how much liberals hate America, or at least that part of America where white heterosexual men work for a living. It was a strange thing to watch Thursday’s debate between the insurgent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and the increasingly frantic former frontrunner Hillary Clinton, where the key issue seemed to be which one of them was more capable of destroying whatever fragments of American civilization might still be intact after Barack Obama concludes his eight-year effort to wreck the country.

Bernie’s plan has the virtue of simplicity:

  1. Loot the banks;
  2. Plunder the rich;
    and
  3. Free stuff for everybody!

That kind of agenda is perennially popular with the disgruntled moochers and radical fanatics who vote in Democrat primaries and, alas, Hillary has to play the unpopular role of the grown-up telling the kids they can’t have ice cream for breakfast. Trying to be the “mainstream” candidate in a Democrat primary is always a tricky exercise, as Hillary found out in 2008 when her decades of loyal service to her party’s anti-American policies were spurned in favor of the half-Kenyan upstart from Chicago. Despite all his bold promises, Obama hasn’t done all his supporters had hoped. There is still money in banks (“Loot them!”) and the rich still have most of it (“Plunder them!”) and there still isn’t as much free stuff as Democrat voters want the government to give them, namely everything.

The Democrat Party is the world’s most successful hate group. It attracts poor people who hate rich people, black people who hate white people, gay people who hate straight people, feminists who hate men, environmentalists who hate the internal combustion engine, and a lot of bratty college kids who hate their parents. However, the real secret of the party’s success is that it attracts the support of journalists who hate Republicans, and who therefore work tirelessly to convince the rest of us that we should vote for Democrats.

This is why I’ve decided to remain neutral — or at least, not to get too excited — about this year’s GOP primary campaign. During the 2012 campaign, I was flying and driving all over the place to cover the epic struggle for the nomination, only to end up with Mr. Inevitable, Mitt Romney, as the candidate. What’s the point, really? No matter who the Republicans nominate for president, the Organized Forces of Liberal Journalism will paint him as a greedy, cold-hearted, woman-hating racist. If the GOP nominated a Buddhist monk or a Latina lesbian, still the New York Times and NBC News would find a way to convince themselves that the Republican candidate represented everything liberals hate about America — the military, the police, Christianity, capitalism, the internal combustion engine and heterosexual white men who work for a living.

American journalism is a temple devoted to promoting a religious faith in which the only true virtue is voting for Democrats. Every four years, the media assume the role of latter-day prophets, whose mission is to warn us of the apocalyptic disaster that will befall the nation if a Republican is elected president. Switch your TV over to MSNBC for a few hours and you can see what this partisan zeal looks like when it is not filtered through the dishonest pretense of “objectivity.” It is important to realize that everyone employed in any position of influence by the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press is as fervently “progressive” as Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews. The editors of newspapers and the producers of network news distort or suppress any story that does not exactly conform to the pro-Democrat narrative.

When Islamic terrorists commit mass murder in San Bernardino, the media portray this not as a story about the dangers of radical Islam, but rather a story about the urgent need to infringe the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. No gun should ever find its way into the hands of a heterosexual white man who works for a living, according to liberal journalists who consider Republicans to be a greater danger than ISIS or machete-wielding Somali Muslim immigrants.

So the debate in Wisconsin between Sanders and Clinton was an exercise with the goal of determining which candidate could go farthest in blaming every problem in the world on banks (“Loot them!”), the rich (“Plunder them!”), white heterosexual men with jobs, and other Evil Forces of Social Injustice that the Republican Party is presumed to represent. The two Democrats disparaged each others’ records and character, but agreed entirely as to their basic goals. Whatever foreign policy issue or domestic problem they were asked to address, Hillary and Bernie always blamed the Evil Forces of Social Injustice, and promised to do everything in their power to punish the Republican wrongdoers responsible.

To say that Hillary Clinton was shameless in her pandering to Democrat voters is to understate the transparent desperation in her efforts to appease the kind of left-wing fringe kooks who take Rachel Maddow seriously. At one point, Hillary began ranting about the Koch brothers — who have replaced the Religious Right as the sinister bogeyman in liberal imaginations — and at another point she also twice used the clunky acronym LGBT in less than a minute:

“I am not a single-issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it’s poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it’s the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that’s what I want to take on. . . . Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence? You’re right. But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday.”

Leave aside any question of policy that may be involved here, because no one could imagine that Bernie Sanders is any less adamant than Hillary in opposing discrimination. Rather, let us ask, first, how significant is such discrimination in the grand scheme of things? And second, we may ask, why did she use this acronym? If Hillary had said “the gay community” and “gay people,” would anyone watching the debate have imagined that lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals were not also included in the generic category? The use of the acronym “LGBT” would seem to be an effort by Hillary to speak the jargon of hardcore activists and the sort of bratty college students who major in Gender Studies.

“Oh, she gets it!” was the reaction Hillary hoped her use of this acronym would elicit from young activists. “She’s inclusive!”

Being flattered and pandered to, being promised the sun, the moon and the stars by politicians oozing sympathy for you — Democrats have been running this three-card monte hustle for as long as anyone can remember. Once upon a time, William Jennings Bryan stirred the ignorant masses with his talk of mankind being crucified on a cross of gold, and all that Democrat noise about the Free Coinage of Silver didn’t really have anything to do with anything that made any difference at all to the lives of ordinary Americans. It was just so much half-mad demagoguery to stir up discontent among the rubes, and here were are in 2016, watching Democrats do the same thing they have always done. The only difference, really, is that we now have polls and consultants to tell Democrats which rubes to target with their shameless pandering. Exactly how much discrimination affects the daily lives of “LGBT people” is as irrelevant now as was the question of whether making silver coins legal tender would have any meaningful impact on the plight of farmers and factory workers to whom William Jennings Bryan was pandering.

Of course, back then, the voters to whom Democrats pandered were heterosexual white men who worked for a living, but the principle — dishonestly promising that the federal government will eradicate all the world’s woes — was the same, and the fools who believe Democrat rhetoric today are every bit as deluded as the struggling farmer who thought “Free Silver” was the solution to his problems in 1896.




 

Category: Bernie Sanders, Debates, Democrats, Hillary Clinton

Comments

55 Responses to “Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Debate: Who Hates America More?”

  1. Ilion
    February 14th, 2016 @ 6:59 pm

    My point, exactly.

  2. Instapundit » Blog Archive » TOUGH QUESTION: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Debate: Who Hates America More?….
    February 15th, 2016 @ 3:35 am

    […] TOUGH QUESTION: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Debate: Who Hates America More?. […]

  3. Diggsc
    February 15th, 2016 @ 4:02 am

    C’mon. That’s just silly. The question at the debates is “Who can be the best communist”.

  4. Cellec
    February 15th, 2016 @ 4:24 am

    The only reason a Marxist dinosaur like Sanders can be taken seriously in 2016 is because of the stranglehold archaic leftists hold over both academia and media. Cleanse those institutions and our society might return to something like sanity.

  5. Steve_in_SoCal
    February 15th, 2016 @ 8:57 am

    Correct. It’s always easier to be charitable with other people’s money. That way, being “charitable” is measuring stick by which it is evaluated.