The Biggest reason I just can't #FeelTheBern (The Fetishization of Not Knowing)

[lunamagica]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-kushner/the-fetishization-of-not-knowing-bernie-sanders_b_9195124.html

The Fetishization of Not Knowing

Daniel Kushner
PhD Candidate in Political Science at Brown University

I began this campaign as a Hillary fan who respected Bernie Sanders and what he had to say about the economy and U.S. politics. I'm not surprised that this message has appealed to so many people, both those I know, and those I don't, in part because it's something which has gotten less attention than it has deserved, even if there are problems with elements of it.

In my calmer moments, I think that the Sanders campaign might represent a positive shift for the discussion of certain topics within the Democratic Party and the broader populace. Listening to him over the past year, however, I began to increasingly believe that for all the positive things his campaign represents, it also represents something deeply problematic: a fetishization of not knowing.

For me, this probably began with the discussion over foreign policy. I spend a decent amount of my time being horrified by the genocide in Syria, and how the instability that seems to be pouring out of that country may produce horrifying outcomes in states ranging from Turkey to Lebanon to Western Europe. I think there is space for multiple proposals about what we do now, and though I'm sympathetic to much of what Obama is doing and Hillary is suggesting continuing, I would have thought a liberal candidate for the presidency would have been talking about the need for increased foreign aid, or greater openness to refugees, or, well, something.

Instead, his primary comment on international affairs seems to be to reiterate and reiterate and reiterate that he had voted against the Iraq War in 2002. When forced to discuss other matters, he quickly bobbles. In the most recent debate, he seemed unsure about whether North Korea has a single or multiple dictators, and then managed to take both positions in a matter of minutes about whether the U.S. should negotiate without preconditions with other countries.

Now, Bernie Sanders is not the first candidate to not be an expert on even something as significant as foreign affairs. But what's deeply troublesome here is how he seems to have no respect for knowledge on it. It's visible in the almost-disdain he expresses for Hillary Clinton's experience on the matter. She had been Secretary of State for four years, but he has been in Congress for more than two decades. Exactly when does he think he'll have sufficient experience to speak fluently on foreign policy?

Even more disconcerting has been his apparent unwillingness to find advisers to help bridge the gap. It was only 15 years ago that Democrats mocked George Bush Jr.'s disinterest in foreign policy; he at least had the courtesy to be embarrassed by what he didn't know, and hired a staff, including professors of international relations and former Secretaries of Defense, to help. They proved to provide much terrible advice, but there was at least an effort to appear informed. Sanders hasn't done so.

But foreign policy isn't a crucial part of the Sanders campaign. Health care, though, is. Five years ago, Sanders proposed a universal health care bill that failed to get any co-sponsors. When he was reticent to provide information about what plan he was proposing now, the Clinton campaign started to criticize that bill. In response, Sanders withdrew his support of that bill, meaning it now had zero support. Shortly before the Iowa caucuses, Sanders proposed a new plan, which was written by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at U-Mass Amherst, whose research focused on the history of the labor union movement in France and the U.S. The plan would cost in the area of $14 trillion over 10 years (for reference, Obamacare was projected to cost in the vicinity of $800 billion over that same time period).

Kenneth Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory, whose research is on the cost of medical programs, and has advised the Democrats in the Vermont State Legislature when they sought to pass a single-payer plan, noted that the plan promised savings in the area of $324 billion a year from prescription drugs, which would have been impressive, considering Americans spend only in the vicinity of $305 billion a year.

When the Sanders campaign was presented with this disparity, as well as others, they quickly attacked Thorpe, and then changed their numbers to acknowledge $444 billion per year of increased costs, but also, instantaneously, magically, found the same number of savings elsewhere. This is not how somebody tries to suggest a serious effort to improve the deeply problematic health care plan in the U.S.

This disrespect for expertise is also manifest in how Sanders speaks about the establishment. Recently, when Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Clinton, he referred to their leadership as being parts of the establishment. They are, to be sure, members of an establishment. They're members of the liberal Democratic establishment that has been promoting, sometimes intelligently and other times not, sometimes effectively and other times less so, liberal ideals for decades.

For efforts to promote human rights, these are the people one would expect to have the most understanding of how to do so. One of the fascinating things about this campaign has been seeing how so many of those who should know Bernie Sanders the best, and have worked the hardest on what would appear to be his issues, have been so eager to oppose him. He spent more than a decade in the House; of the 188 Democrats there now, two endorsed him, and 157 endorsed Hillary.

Sanders serves in the U.S. Senate with 45 Democratic-voting colleagues; not only have none endorsed him, but 39 have endorsed Hillary. Sanders has been a significant figure in Vermont politics for four decades. Patrick Leahy, his fellow Senator from Vermont, endorsed Hillary. The incumbent governor of Vermont, and two former Democratic governors of Vermont, endorsed Hillary.

Sanders has focused on issues relating to the labor movement; virtually every single major labor union has endorsed Hillary Clinton. For contrast, in the 2008 campaign, many of these people waited until a few primaries had been held before endorsing. This time, there is almost glee in their desire to make their views known.

Again and again, when the Sanders campaign learns of these moves, the emphasis is on their being parts of the establishment. And they are parts of an establishment. But if this establishment is the enemy, then on whose side is he?

[Lucinda]

1. Great read! I support Hillary, but still defended Bernie

until he deflected from his lack of foreign policy knowledge, by comparing Hillary to Cheney. He ceased being a dude with a slightly shady campaign staff, and turned the corner into someone I can't defend anymore.

[Cha]

13. Interesting, Lucinda.. thank you for that.

[Lucinda]

40. posted here instead of to lunamagica

Last edited Thu Feb 11, 2016, 05:38 PM - Edit history (2)

[lunamagica]

17. I hope there is a debate centered in foreign policy

[Lucinda]

43. me too!

It definitely would be something to see!

[Hortensis]

19. I am more liberal than Hillary but have come to

Last edited Thu Feb 11, 2016, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

realize that I cannot support Bernie. I'd held that door open for some time. Yes, I definitely would vote for him over any GOP candidate because I share many of his stated goals and they're really scary, but nervously because I now finally recognize that Bernie is not a far wiser, more moderate and reasonable version of his more extremist followers but, rather, that they actually are a fairly true reflection of who he is.

I have them to thank for sending me to read about the far left in America. Because of that I now understand that their constant, profound disrespect and contempt for liberals and the intense righteousness and intolerance toward everyone who is "not with" them are characteristic of the anti-Democratic, extreme left wing." "Progressives," as this era's version is calling themselves only, reject all other progressives as enemies unworthy of the name. So typical, so telling! And so dysfunctional!

Of course, Sanders disses economists who disagree with him and others, like PP, who decide for practical reasons to support his opponent. These aren't just calculated political statements, they are expressions of genuine, newly generated contempt for those who aren't "with him."

Most shocking and clarifying is to understand that this group's greatest hostility is and always will be reserved for liberals, especially moderate liberals. Also that that intolerance of moderates is also the key to their strange lack of hostility to not just the right, but particularly those on the far right -- whom they strongly resemble in many important ways. Too many for comfort.

In any case, these are unfortunately not just minor traits that can be ignored in Sanders but evidence of a dysfunctional rigidity and inability to form alliances that historically has relegated extreme left movements to the sidelines of American politics. The Tea Party is a recent right-wing extremist success only because it was formed and funded by the Kochs and their coalition.

“Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?”

"The Democratic Party ideologically bankrupt, they have no ideology. Their ideology is opportunism.”

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."

Bernie Sanders

“Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.” - Rep. Barney Frank

"Guma recalled meeting Sanders for the first time at a campaign information session and asking why the candidate for Senate should get his vote. ... "Do you know what the movement is? Have you read the books?" he recalled Sanders responding. "If you didn't come to work for the movement, you came for the wrong reasons—I don't care who you are, I don't need you." From Mother Jones

[Squinch]

38. Great post! This is a good description of my path to supporting Hillary too/

[Lucinda]

42. The total disregard for others views is astounding.

I did a little research on Sanders congressional work for the past few years...
Yes, he has joined the bi-partisan efforts of others, but in 2015, in the 20+ pieces he introduced in the Senate, not a single one had a Republican co-sponsor. In the prior two years, the number was less than 10%. So I see absolutely no evidence he has had the interest, or the skillset, to work across the aisle on HIS ideas, since he hasn't bothered to cultivate that support to date.

Like you, I wouldn't support a Republican. It is just unthinkable.

Regardless what grand notion of government he might like to create, and I think most progressives can definitely agree in part with him on many things, we LIVE in a representative government with three distinct branches. I think all in all, it is a pretty wise structure, intended to insure a balance of influence, and I have no issues with it in principle. Yes, it can and should be sorted out. We've lost our way a bit, and there is too much outside interference beyond the voters. I have hope that we can and will resolve those problems, and with work, move the country leftward. The fact that Trump has gained traction this year shows me that the Republican base may be waking up. That is a good first step in reaching out to those voters, who have had at least two decades of hateful misinformation spewed in their general direction. If we reach out to the middle right and move them leftward, we'd have a clear majority and could move forward without the constant threat of one election wiping out years of progress.

[Hortensis]

44. Interesting research, but not surprising.

"We LIVE in a representative government with three distinct branches. I think all in all, it is a pretty wise structure, intended to insure a balance of influence, and I have no issues with it in principle."

Yes!

I believe that today we have people active on both the right and left who do have issues with it, in principle and in practice. Instead of accepting them as necessary to a stable republic, both see our system of checks and balances mainly as obstructions in their righteous paths. Usually characterized as corrupt.

[Lucinda]

45. I agree. It sems the definition of "corrupt" for some is directly related to

just how much they get their own way. And it is ridiculous. It is part of why Clinton is called anti-progressive, even though her public record is quite the contrary.

We have issues. Too much influence from those with vested interests is not in the public good, and is a huge problem, but this whole idea that compromise, and fighting for hard won progress, is somehow selling out, is a childish view of what citizenship is in my opinion. I grow more and more weary of extremists. They can be great for starting discussion, but when they ignore the foundations of the country that they actually live in, the lose me.

[Hortensis]

46. +1000! Encouragingly, in New Hampshire, as in Iowa,

exit polls showed most people who voted for Bernie actually had a positive opinion of Hillary as well. There are obviously a lot more reasonable liberals in those states than otherwise; and also encouragingly, more and more people are admitting it publicly -- probably in some cases recognizing it in themselves for the first time.

[Lucinda]

47. Yep. She does have some trouble in these polls, which

in a large part, IMO, comes from ignoring all the outlandish statements about herself for all these years.

I used to get a little angry with her about it, because soooo much of it is so easy to refute... but she answered the issue really clearly at one of the town halls recently. She said this stuff has been coming at her for decades, and she just cant stop getting work done to refute it all. So she just keep going out and working to make peoples lives better.

It's comforting to see the changes in peoples faces when you watch her at town halls. People who are really listening finally get it. Which is also why, time after time, she is cleared from all the charges of wrong doing in these manufactured scandals. There is no there, there. And I'm glad to see that people who bought the lies are finally figuring it all out.

[Hortensis]

48. Public slurs can never be fully erased from

the public consciousness; virtually every attack undermines, no matter what you do, and she's been battling incoming assaults for a quarter century. She's amazing.

A rare exception was that 13-hour "Benghazi hearing." They really should have just kept throwing the knives from behind.

[Lucinda]

50. It was pretty much a commercial for just how awesome she is.

Smart, smart woman.

[Hortensis]

53. Yes! A 13-hour virtuosa eye-opener for many.

[Lucinda]

54. I loved it when one guy from the audience at the town hall told her he watched it all

and was now a supporter.

[BlueMTexpat]

51. +1!

I will not say anything bad about him but I will no longer defend.

I've had it.

[mgmaggiemg]

2. agree with this post..thank-you for writing it ;)

cheers, maggie

[lunamagica]

18. My pleasure, Maggie ;)

[SunSeeker]

3. K & R

[shenmue]

4. Yes

[gwheezie]

5. This brings up several good points

And bless his heart he has sung the same time for 50 years. Now some see that as a plus, but I appreciate people who can expand and adapt. I like Obama for that reason, I like the complex and nuanced thought process that takes in new information and tweaks their position or even entirely change position when called for.
About 45 years ago I joined the progressive labor party. I found the single minded focus on labor and socialism left out issues that perhaps were even more important. I left, it was too rigid.
The other issue that concerns me is things have changed drastically in the middle East since the Iraq war vote. Bernie acknowledges this almost off handedly and his supporters don't seem to notice or care. He said he will continue to use drones, he will continue to supply military and financial aid to defeating Isis and he makes vague references to some kind of coalition. Yet when people try to engage him in a debate contrasting his pov to Clinton's he says I voted against iraq. I want to know what he offers that is different than Clinton. Because inspite of what his supporters say, its the rudimentary position Hillary has. Yet his supporters insist he will not continue our middle East wars, well if that's true then why does he say he will use drones and continue military support?
He has one note, it might be a pleasant note but it is annoying after you listen to it long enough. Not saying I wouldn't vote for him, I like him, I was and still am thrilled he entered the race. And honestly, I was never a puma, not in 08 or now, if Bernie is the dem nominee and not Hillary, it means more democrats voted for him. I'm not going to be mad at him for winning. Just like in 08, I wasn't angry that Obama won, in fact when the GE started for real, I thought Obama was the right nominee.

[lunamagica]

20. His supportera are blinded by his peomises. Free college? $15.00 an hour to start with?

No wonder kids are for him in droves.

Now, today, he is promising a trillion Dollars for poos communities.

So much pandering, but it seems to be working for him -up until now.

I hope things change soon.

[BainsBane]

6. I agree with so much of this

but my conclusion has been that particular details and basic knowledge don't matter to him because he operates on the level of political slogans, with policy low on his list of concerns. My reaction to such inaccuracies is that I find it impossible to believe him.

[lunamagica]

22. It's just easier to go with simple platitudes, especially when he is saying what people want to hear

But this is too much. How long can he keep this fantasy bubble from bursting?

Now it's a trillion Dollars for poor communities? HOW? (Funny he didn't even hint at that before NH).

Everyday he shows himself more and more to be a fake

[BainsBane]

49. Figures

I hadn't heard that one yet, but it doesn't surprise me. Naturally it doesn't make an appearance until he enters Southern States.

[Dawson Leery]

7. k/r

[Treant]

8. The New Know-Nothings,

Left Wing Branch?

Maybe. Certainly I can't get a decent explanation out of most of the Bernie-supporters I've had conversations with. Condescension, yes. The wish that I'd "hurry up and die" so the political revolution can take over...yep (honey, I'm in my forties and eat mostly salad, so you have a looooong wait). Called names? Yeppers.

Honestly, Nevada and South Carolina can't get here fast enough. Most now seem convinced that Sanders has wooed the AA and Latio communities and is about to sweep the south.

Yeah. Sure. Good luck with that.

[lunamagica]

24. Yes, they like to see themselves not just so much morally superion than us, but also intelectually

than any Clinton suporter

The fact is that they fall for bumper sticker lines, platitudes and simplistic solutions for incredibly complex problems.

They don't want to know about details...the revolution will take care of everything.

[Treant]

32. I did finally flip out on another board

and simply use the statement, "Know-Nothings." Surprisingly, nobody really disagreed. They're pretty proud of having big dreams and no knowledge of how to get there.

Certainly they have no knowledge of how superdelegates work, or how caucuses apportion delegates. It's really rather sad.

I mean, seriously. Right now, I'm clueless on NV's methods. By the time we're at the eve of the caucus, I'll know what I need to know. Ditto with SC and Super Tuesday states. I'll know who should perform well in given locales (less so on Super Tuesday when the number of areas is overwhelming), and what to watch for in terms of campaign weaknesses and cracks starting to show.

[betsuni]

9. K&R

[Satch59]

10. Excellent read...

Great responses too, from this group, not from the Bernie responses in the General discussion... Would love Hillary to bring up some of these points in the debate tonight... Time to burst the revolution bubble and let it fall down into reality.

[lunamagica]

25. One of the best articles I have ever read. I hope Hillary brings

many of this points tonight

[JohnnyRingo]

11. K&R

Well written with good points, particularly the endorsements. Something to consider.

[lunamagica]

27. So much to think about!

[Cha]

12. Wow, lunamagica .. I finally got the time to sit still and read this..

Daniel Kushner's article is quite comprehensive.. nothing I hadn't read at one time or another but here it is all together on one compact piece.

He asks an excellent question at the end..

"Again and again, when the Sanders campaign learns of these moves, the emphasis is on their being parts of the establishment. And they are parts of an establishment. But if this establishment is the enemy, then on whose side is he?"

Thank you for this.. I'll be sending it to my sister in California who supports Hillary but she is appalled by Sanders from just what she's seen of him on tv.. that's what she knows of politics.

She obviously has good instincts and I want her to know more of the details.

Muchas Gracias!

[Hortensis]

21. IMO, that's the best point of many good ones made here.

[lunamagica]

26. Cha, this is one of the best analysis ever...it really shows how unprepared Sanders is for

the presidency. He would never survive the GOP machine in a GE campaign..he's just no prepeared for the fight.

I hope to see this article posted everywhere!

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. What an excellent article, and a helluva good read. Thanks for posting it here. n/t

[lunamagica]

28. Excellent indeed. Please shrare it anywhere you can

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Will do! n/t

[SleeplessinSoCal]

15. and there is this other yuge reason to support Hillary over Bernie.

How on earth do you elect someone who wants you to pay 60% of your income to the IRS?

Truly. How would that happen?

After briefly perusing some tax statistics in America and England, it became immediately apparent that although a single payer, or universal healthcare system is a dream come true, the cost to the people all but ensures single payer is not in the near future; and no political revolution is going to change that fact.

Americans are not interested in paying significantly higher income taxes to have ‘government-provided’ healthcare.

Americans hate the IRS and paying taxes.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/10/why-americans-cant-have-universal-healthcare-like-europeans.html

[lunamagica]

29. The GOP would tear him appart in a GE campaign over this

No wonder they want him to win the primaries (I'm convinced Sanders received much Republican support in NH, just to get Hillary out of the way)

[BooScout]

16. This is excellent!

[lunamagica]

30. Beyond excellent! Please, share it anywhere you can!

[BooScout]

35. I already have, lol

[The Green Manalishi]

23. I think a big part of the "attraction" is general revulsion at US foreign policy since WW2

Hillary, like Kerry, has had to play the hand dealt her and deal with the real world. There is a lot to be ashamed of that the US has done in the last 70 years, Hillary has done the best she can with the clusterf**k that is American foreign policy. Talk about having to clean up a mess, but try 'splaining that to an idealistic young person...

[lunamagica]

31. Plus the promise of free college...it's not a slam to young people, but some things come with age

maturity, experience... can't blame them for their idealism!

[William769]

34. Kick & very highly recommended!

[DrewFlorida]

36. You make valid points regarding Bernie's weaknesses........

and I appreciate hearing those points made in an articulate way, I too am concerned about Bernie's lackings. However I am incredibly worried about income inequality and the effects it has on everyday Americans, as well as the effects it has on our long term economics. I don't feel that Hilary gets it in this area, it seems as though she gives sound bites on the subject, but her heart is not in it. I distrust Hilary's coziness with Wall-Street and her statement that she took $200,000 per speech because "That's what they offered" doesn't show much recognition of the problem. I distinctly get the feeling that under a Hilary Clinton administration she will do little to go after Wall-Street greed in any way that would make a difference. Same for income inequality, same for banks that are too big to fail.
Of course, all of this is a moot point if we don't win big in the Senate and Congress, as we have seen, not much will get passed with out a large majority.

Let's hope we can take both the Senate and Congress as well as the Presidency with either Hilary or Bernie.
The alternative is unthinkable!
Go Bernie! Go Hilary! Go Democrats all over the country!

[Ratty]

37. I have no doubt whatsoever

That given the chance Hillary would love to enact most of the same things as Bernie Sanders. Given the right makeup of Congress she would push for universal health care, moving beyond ACA as she was able. Probably the biggest peeve I have with the more, shall I say, um, enthusiastic Bernie supporters, is when they proclaim that we're all against universal health care because we support Hillary. They post criticisms of ACA with an implied "There. See what your voting for?" No, thank you for the concern Bernie supporters, but I don't agree Hillary is in the pocket of Big Pharma or acting at the behest of insurance companies no matter how long, often, and relentlessly you claim it.

This was a great article, I mean really wonderful. It reinforced what I already knew and taught me some things I didn't.

[wysi]

55. Anyone who claims that Hillary supporters...

... or that Hillary herself is "against universal health care" was either not around in 1993-1994 or can't remember her pioneering work in this area. It was then that I said to my friends that Hillary would make a great President.

[pandr32]

39. Excellent!

I wish there was a way to make this election related required reading!

[justhanginon]

41. Probably the best written expression of the many reasons why

Sec. Clinton is really the only intelligent choice both in the primary and again in the general election. I came to that conclusion fairly early on and the more I see and hear of her opponent and as I see and listen to Sec. Clinton the more I feel vindicated in my support of her.

[BlueMTexpat]

52. Excellent article, lunamagica!

This ...

This disrespect for expertise is also manifest in how Sanders speaks about the establishment. Recently, when Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Clinton, he referred to their leadership as being parts of the establishment. They are, to be sure, members of an establishment. They're members of the liberal Democratic establishment that has been promoting, sometimes intelligently and other times not, sometimes effectively and other times less so, liberal ideals for decades.

For efforts to promote human rights, these are the people one would expect to have the most understanding of how to do so.
...
Sanders has focused on issues relating to the labor movement; virtually every single major labor union has endorsed Hillary Clinton. For contrast, in the 2008 campaign, many of these people waited until a few primaries had been held before endorsing. This time, there is almost glee in their desire to make their views known.

Again and again, when the Sanders campaign learns of these moves, the emphasis is on their being parts of the establishment. And they are parts of an establishment. But if this establishment is the enemy, then on whose side is he?

[YCHDT]

56. Wow.. So Sanders has only around five percent of dem congress nominees?!?