[dropcap size=small]S[/dropcap]o as we all know, everyone’s favorite totally-not-a-Democrat Bernie Sanders is running for president… As a Democrat. The “independent” senator from Vermont is of course running on the leftist ticket because he is one of the most transparently far left candidates in the running. But for all his faults (and believe me, especially when it comes to his grasp of economics, he has them), I admit I rather like Sanders – his sincerity on the issues, even when he gets them wrong, is refreshing, and there are certain areas within his rhetoric that actually appeal to my more socially liberal sensibilities than even Rand Paul‘s current platform.
Having said that, it’s also important to note that Sanders, much like Rand, isn’t exactly the darling of the establishment wing of his respective party. Compared to his fellow Democratic candidates, ol’ Bernie is quite unconventional. For instance, he actually wants to stop the wars whereas the hawks in the party like Hillary Clinton seem happy to continue them. While the latter attitude is far less popular with the American public (and not to mention far removed from the typical liberal/progressive stance on war at large), that doesn’t seem to bring Sanders any favors – the big money fuels the majority of the campaigns these days, and the big money seems to like perpetual wars. So as long as money remains the unlimited influence in politics it currently is, the honest candidates on both sides – including Sanders and Paul – will fail to gain the kind of influence among their constituents to be fully and unabashedly endorsed.
Wolf PAC, a grassroots political initiative spearheaded by independent (a.k.a. not bought) media mogul Cenk Uyger, is aiming to do precisely what the status quo leaders of today’s political parties are afraid or unwilling to do themselves – get big money out of politics to the point where the best candidate truly can and will win on his own merits. Imagine a world where this sort of thing truly could be possible again – the Rand Pauls and Bernie Sanders of the world would sweep every poll and win every election. But today, unfortunately, not enough has changed to make this scenario a reality.
Yet.
So in the meantime, we the proud few who actually research our candidates and vote on the issues rather than brand names must still endure the now standard experience of media blackouts, candidate misrepresentation, and other foul endeavors by the establishment to try and edge out the honest candidates in races such as the presidency 2016 and make room for their bought and paid for actors – the “safe” choices everyone knows will perpetuate what has always been, and never will actually make much of a difference despite the campaign promises and the ingratiating talking points each and every one of them exude. These are the Mitt Romneys and Barack Obamas of the political sphere – the guys who talk large while obfuscating a rather paltry toolbox, making promises they and their financial backers know they cannot and will not keep – in fact, that is in many cases precisely the point.
So getting back to Bernie Sanders specifically, we can draw parallels between himself and Rand Paul; though Paul is clearly the more “libertarian” of the two and therefore deserving of my camp’s primary support, Sanders isn’t completely against us either. And both men seem to be very honest, well-versed politicians who have a chance at actually winning their spots as primary frontrunners if only their voices could reach enough ears to hear.
And that brings us to the main problem that plagues both Sanders and Paul – reaching the average, politically jaded/disenfranchised/blissfully ignorant American citizen. How can these aforementioned people, which admittedly make up the vast majority of influential votes, actually hear the messages of our most honest, ready-for-change candidates of said candidates are never given the platform to speak in the first place? While it’s true that The Libertarian Republic reports all the time on how the powers that be black out Rand Paul on a regular basis, there is mounting evidence that Bernie Sanders is also getting the same undeserving treatment.
In an article by Adam Johnson writing for Alternet, it is suggested that there are four key ways in which the mainstream media, for instance, is undermining the Sanders campaign despite its large (and growing) grassroots support:
1) Blackout.
We libertarians are already far too familiar with this tactic, as we have seen now two libertarian-leaning Republican candidates, with four presidential campaigns between them, receive the same treatment. By “ignoring Sanders outright,” writes Johnson, the mainstream media outlets make their false narrative easier to sell – a presidential race with no revolutionary contenders on either side of the aisle.
In May, for instance, a successful rally was held for Sanders supporters that brought upwards of 5,000 attendees – hardly even mentioned by any of the major players in news media. And as for the always popular and influential Meet the Press, well they flat-out ignored Sanders, always the active politician even before his presidential bid, for nine months straight. I wish I were kidding.
2) Shading him under the establishment candidates.
When the New York Times finally did the right thing and mentioned Sanders semi-positively to their largely liberal and Democratic readers, the piece also somehow made it all about Hillary, suggesting that the only reason Sanders draws attention is due to her apparently omnipotent reach to American voters. Wait– What?
Johnson points out the insincerity of such a tactic in his article, yet doesn’t seem to grasp the cruel irony of now having to suffer himself the same injustices we more centrist types have been dealing with – and liberal reporters like himself many times joined in on – involving our own “fringe” candidates.
3) Lying.
Yes, Sanders supporters, as I already mentioned before, you are finally getting a taste of what Paul supporters and libertarians at large have been dealing with for ages – in the case of having one’s candidate lied about on television, it’s one of the most infuriating things about these kind of media witch hunts.
As noted in Johnson’s article, Sanders has been picking up a lot of steam and fairing quite well in polling and supporter turnout pretty much everywhere he goes. And yet, despite this obviously positive forward and upward motion for the Sanders campaign, big time media outlets keep repeating the mantra that Bernie is a “can’t win,” “unrealistic” kind of candidate. Oh, boy, does this sound familiar…
4) And finally, of course, framing the candidate as scary and “fringe.”
Whenever these more left- or right-of-center candidates emerge to take on the establishment in political warfare, they are almost always referred to as scary, “fringe” contenders whose policies are far too dangerous or drastic (in what ways, it’s conveniently never really delineated) to every actually be implemented. The funny thing about centrist candidates, though, is that they actually fall exactly where they need to in order to, in theory, appeal to the most people and pull the most votes:
So, in actuality, the guys who already start near the middle in their political views have to do less work to reach this ideal middle point for voter turnout, which in turn means these candidates can remain the most honest and flip-flop on issues the least – they are already there! Why step out of their sincere spaces on the political dial when they can theoretically win it all by being 100 percent honest from the beginning? That is the most amazing position any candidate could hope to find himself in. So why do the talking heads of news media act as if just the contrary is true?
According to Johnson in his Alternet article, it makes little sense aside from bought-and-paid-for agenda-pushing. In his words, there is “little empirical evidence” to support the claim that Sanders is in any way a candidate who stands on the fringes. There is, however, plenty of evidence to support just the opposite – and that, just as it does with Rand Paul, scares the ever loving shit out of the suits in Washington and their bedfellows in the media.
The parallels are clear, and the response is the same – Sanders, like Paul, is a threat to the status quo. For that reason alone, I believe all of us owe Sanders (at least in spirit) if not our outright support, at the very least our attention and respect.
1 comment