Saturday, May 28, 2016

The Atlantic "This is How A Revolution Ends" (Sanders Part IV)

The irrationality of the Sanders camp is now an open secret.  I have several friends who continue to be part of the cult movement.  To their credit, Sanders does indeed appeal to the liberal wing of Democrats, who are numerous in California, and there are more Northerly white states for him to mine: Montana and both Dakotas.  The math is against him, but "momentum" supposedly means something.

In the Atlantic, This is How a Revolution Ends, Molly Ball (I hope that's her real name! I love it!) spews the sarcasm:
This is Sanders’s last stand, according to the official narrative of the corrupt corporate media, and if there is anything we have learned in the past year, it is the awesome power of the official narrative—the self-reinforcing drumbeat that dictates everything.
Sanders is the victim of the corrupt mainstream media when he loses, but he's living proof of the validity of his "revolution" when he wins, apparently.
(Bernie-or-Bust supporter) Caldwell discovered Sanders last year through Tumblr and YouTube videos. She is an active member of three different Sanders-boosting Facebook groups and livestreams once a week “to motivate people to vote for Bernie.” It has changed their lives, being a part of this movement. Something like that doesn’t just end. Does it?
This passage made my skin crawl just a bit.  The internet has made it possible for like-minded people (like atheists) to find each other, which is great.  The downside is that it has created virtual cults.  Outside viewpoints can be ignored.  Insiders are praised for parroting the words of the leaders.  Doubt is discouraged.   The power to do this is a double-edged sword.  It inspires people to belong to something larger than themselves and to change the world.  That's good sometimes, but dangerous other times.  It's how "self-radicalized" terrorists are made.

Could the "nones" who are "spiritual but not religious" find this a satisfying alternative to religions, with their ancient dogma, political power, and trivial rules?
Prasad Paul Duffy, a 58-year-old spiritual activist and filmmaker with shoulder-length blond curls. He was sitting cross-legged and barefoot on the field before the speeches started. “It’s a tool of the 1 percent, the powers that be. It should be abolished.” Clinton, he believes, is “owned by the billionaires,” and he could never vote for her.

“I would vote for Trump,” Duffy said. “At least he’s challenging the status quo. He sees we’ve been sold down the river and we’ve got to get it back. I prefer Bernie’s means to Trump’s! Trump is being demonized in the press for similar reasons as Bernie is being ignored. They’re both challenging the system.
One of my nutty friends said that Trump would be better than Hillary, though for different reasons. If this Duffy had been watching the media instead of the internet, he'd see that Bernie hasn't really been ignored, and that Trump got rather honest coverage. If Trump comes across as xenophobic for wanting to build a wall or deny entrance to the country for any muslim, that's due to his own words. In a sense, all candidates challenge the status quo about something. Hillary is the exception for hinting at an Obama III presidency, but there's definitely a false equivalency between Sanders and Trump. Sanders is against the 1% and Trump was born into the 1% for one thing.

Fortunately, this guy is in the minority among Sanderites, but it's a sizeable and irrational minority. Some of my friends insist they'd vote for the Green Party candidate rather than either Clinton or Trump, even if it means Trump would win. I don't understand that logic, and I hope that once the primary is a dim memory they will see the choices more clearly.
As Sanders gave his usual 75-minute consciousness-raising diatribe in Santa Monica, the temperature dropped about 15 degrees, and people began to stream off the field. By the time he got to the climactic line—“In fact, we need a political revolution!”—the whole back half was empty, and the crowd was practically too sparse to give the requisite answering roar.
Ouch! Sanders "appeals" to young people, but does he know they don't have 75-minute attention spans? It doesn't sound like he puts on a very good show. I have to research which bands he hired and what they played. He's a septaguanarian. Does he know any of the musicians "those kids these days" know?

Or maybe after listening to him yell for over an hour it started sounding like "Hey, you kids! Get off my lawn!"

1 comment:

Human Ape said...

I don't think a socialist president would be good for the economy. I'm betting Ms. Clinton gets the job because of her foreign policy experience.

I'm a fiscal conservative so I usually vote for the Republican. However I voted for Mr. Clinton twice and Mr. Obama once. This year in the Florida primary I voted for Kasich because he was the only adult Republican candidate. Now we are stuck with a celebrity clown. Before I make a voting decision I will watch the debates. However if one or both candidates spend the debates insulting each other I'm turning off the TV.