Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bernie Sanders Is Not Running for President of the United States . . .
. . . He is campaigning to overthrow the existing U.S. Constitutional government and replace it with a new government. That new government will be based on principles completely different from the principles of the existing US government.
I happened to hear a portion of Mr. Sanders’ announcement video and was horrified by the level of revolution I heard in the short clip. I looked further to be sure the segment hadn’t been taken out of context. I don’t think it was. I hesitated to post this (I’m really not a crazy conspiracy theorist), but so many ideas that are antithetical to the founding principles of the United States republic are now considered acceptable or even desirable that I thought Bernie Sanders’ announcement was a place to plant a stake.
In his announcement video (link via Townhall, though you can find it elsewhere, including on Mr. Sanders’ own website), Mr. Sanders states that his objective is to “fundamentally transform” the country. He says several times in his video that he intends to “create” a government. He lists at different times in the video a variety of bases for the new government that are in direct opposition to the bases for the current US Constitutional government. He cites as the bases for his new government creating various “equalities” and eliminating various “isms.” These bases are incompatible with “unalienable rights” that include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (I know that line is in the Declaration of Independence, and not in the Constitution, but it expresses a principle on which the Constitution is based.) Mr. Sanders proposes a government based on achieving results that are consistent with his perceptions of what “should” be.
We should be asking whether if he were to win the election, could he honestly take the oath of office that includes a provision to uphold the U.S. Constitution?
Several other candidates seem to be leaning in the same direction. We should also ask them whether they really could take the Constitutional oath of office for the presidency (and maybe to question whether they were dishonest when they recited the oath of office for the offices they currently hold).
Push the Democrat candidates to confirm that their objective is to conduct a revolution. The revolution might not initially involve arms and violence, but, force and violence will be needed to accomplish most of the objectives Mr. Sanders and several other candidates are laying out for the proposed new government. I would also like to ask these candidates what level of violence they are prepared to apply to accomplish their objectives (take away people’s “excess” money and things to achieve appropriate “equality,” force people to stop saying “incorrect” views of the cited “isms”).
I have some sympathy with wanting to overthrow a government when you don’t like how it’s working out. Our political ancestors 243 years ago overthrew a constitutional monarchy. But they were honest about what they were doing. They didn’t keep the old forms so they could pretend they weren’t doing what they were in fact doing. Mr. Sanders and his fellow candidates should stop pretending that they seek to fill an office in a Constitutional structure that they intend to overthrow.
[I recognize that many of the other statements he makes in his announcement video are so patently false and nonsensical that it should be obvious to all that he is an ignorant idiot, but apparently, a non-trivial number of people take his ideas seriously, so I get concerned.
Published in Elections
I watched almost all of his announcement on you tube – I didn’t hear revolution until the end. I share your concerns – The progressive agenda was up and running full speed ahead in 2016 – then a big hiccup named Donald Trump loused it up. They never stopped planning, organizing and again are ready, probably with twice the force for 2020. It’s not about Trump or Sanders – there is a lot going on, and the force to bring about the end of the Constitution as we know it, the freedoms we take for granted, as well as the Judaeo-Christian values that our Founders gave us, and they can’t wait. We better be ready for it…
He could not. It requires the oath-taker to promise two mutually exclusive things.
Fortunately for Bernie should he win, the Constitution only specified a requirement to make the promises, not any penalty for breaking either or both.
If we don’t stop it now, this New Deal that FDR is pushing will fly straight through Congress, and next thing we know, Hoover will get his national wage, price, and interest rate controls.
You are right, of course, and I do not think it’s something to joke about. I write that silliness only to emphasize how desperate the need is becoming for us to finally plant a stake.
We have been on a not-quite-straight, but close-enough-for-government-work course for despotic government since we voluntarily placed Teddy Roosevelt and his allies in high office, and we’ve yet to plant our first stake in firm ground.
Bernie never ran for President. He ran for the nomination by the Democratic Party of which he is not a member. In actuality Bernie ran so he could legally bilk 7 or 8 million dollars from his contributors. He did it by collecting the brokerage fees of 15% on his advertising buys using his wife’s best friend as a front. I guess he wants another bite from the apple.
Bern raised $6 million for his campaign on day 1 and is polling in second place behind a guy (Biden) who isn’t even running.
Not that this matters; with 30 Democrats running Bern could get 30% of the Democrat electorate and walk to the nomination.
They have a serious problem on their hands.
“Fundamentally transform.” Are people really going to fall for that line again?
I don’t find this to be anything new. This has been the program of the Left, and the Democratic Party, since the 1980s, with the possible exception of “New Democrat” Bill Clinton. My impression was that Clinton cultivated a centrist image and adopted some centrist policies, but only as a matter of practical politics and convenience.
Why he running as a democrat? Shouldn’t he be in running as a third party candidate? Or as a socialist party candidate or a democratic socialist party candidate?
Bern joined the party during the 2016 primary due to party rules requiring people running for its nomination to actually be _in_ the party.
He almost certainly will do so again.
Slate just called out Bernie for being too cozy with Latin American Leftist Strongmen. I filed an OP about it.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/bernie-sanders-maduro-castro-latin-america-socialism.html
http://ricochet.com/598386/slate-calls-out-bernie-sanders/
.
Nicely put.
One thing I wonder about is why leftists bother with term limits and the minimum age limit for the President. Those things are just written in the Constitution, and according to their fashionable theories that’s not where law comes from.
Phrased more technically, is there any theory of Constitutional interpretation that justifies the Democratic Party’s policies but does not justify abandoning term limits and letting AOC run in 2020?
Kevin Williamson pretty much came to the same conclusion as you did:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/bernie-sanders-2020-presidential-campaign-populism-corporatism/
Yes Kevin has part of it but for the whole story go in depth on Old Towne Media. Make sure it’s Towne not Town. They billed something like 81.1 million to Bernie ‘s campaign for ad buys. They legally can receive up to 15% of that as a commission . OTM is a LLC with hidden principles but is run from a residential home in Va owned by a close friend of Bernie’s wife. I would bet that Bernie shares the ownership and profits of that LLC.
Former Pres. Obama made significant movement in that direction. Many of Obama’s “pen and a phone” policies are still in place. Obama’s most consequential effect is to seriously undermine the concept of the “rule of law” so that judges feel free to rule based on who the president is, rather than on what the law is.
Although people claim that Pres. Trump is running roughshod over the law, those people do seem to want a fundamental transformation such that government rules based on who you are, not on what the law is.
Exactly. In the last hundred years, how many members of Congress have said to themselves, “It would be nice to pass that law but it violates the Constitution, so I regretfully have to vote against it.” I would be surprised if 20% of them have consistently voted against laws that get them results they or their constituents want because of constitutional restraints. They are representatives of the people and the American people by and large want what they want, and don’t care if it violates the Constitution.