A female friend of mine excitedly posted a clip of
Trotsky Bernie Sanders announcing his 2016 presidential candidacy.
The speech was nothing spectacular, just the usual pabulum and populist claptrap: the wage gap, income inequality, and the government expansion that would be part and parcel of rectifying these disparities. I decided to chime in with some sober logic:
I even threw the old dog some bones. Concessions notwithstanding, I took issue most of his platform, as its realization would necessitate further expansion of an already bloated federal government through the mechanisms of increased taxation, social engineering, meddling in the private sector, and increased deficit spending. The U.S. is kicking this debt can further and further down the road. Given his socialist platform, a Sanders presidency will see unprecedented levels of debt assumption. I pointed out that one concerned about the plight of the average American should be concerned about the dangers of an intrusive government that would expand to regulate the minutiae of private life as well as the economically erosive effects of inflation, as the average American has a hedge against neither. My logic was not welcome here:
Straw men, red herrings, non sequiturs, misapprehension of the arguments, and emotionalism galore. “He is not talking about spending without creating revenue.” Well, maybe. But if by “creating revenue” she meant “increasing taxation,” is it likely that increased taxation of corporations and the wealthy could ever generate “revenue” sufficient to service $18 trillion in debt? She has to know that the definition of wealthy inevitably will be expanded down the income scale in order to generate this “revenue.” Furthermore, if the country will never be able to generate enough revenue to close the deficit, and a candidate talks about “expanding [insert government programs here],” is it not clear that will require deficit spending? Is it not clear that such proposals will require increased government spending, which will in turn trigger cascades of inflation, which will ultimately harm the poor to middle class?
My assumptions were solid. Sanders never even mentioned tackling our abyss of a deficit, presumably because national solvency is of no import to him. Considering that much of his platform revolves around increased government spending, I have to assume that the fact that the nation is at the brink of insolvency is not something that keeps him up at night. Also, I never mentioned libertarianism or Rand Paul.
Also, note the “I don’t care about the platform-I’d be perfectly OK with a charismatic strongman dictator who radically and unilaterally revised the laws of our republic to achieve my policy preferences regardless of the price and of the damage to the nation’s integrity.” So, she would vote on a candidate not based upon the feasibility of his/her platform planks, but solely based upon how she feels about what he/she is saying. Further note the “government regulation of my vagina” non sequitur. I spoke specifically and exclusively about the possible economic ramifications of a Sanders presidency based on the planks of his platform. Clearly it’s acceptable to her that the nation continue along its current suicidal trajectory, so long as she is able to access birth control. I would say: “who cares about IUDs when you’re living in caves?” She would think that this was a fair price to pay for “gender equality.” Agree to disagree, as they say.
Try as I might, I just couldn’t muster outrage at the thought of not having the “right” to slaughter my unborn. I tried to refocus:
I tried to rally with some more salient points and even made some more concessions, gracious person that I am. I acknowledged that the wealthy do have access to several taxpayer subsidized gimmedats that I would prefer to see disappear. I even agreed that Rand Paul was kind of a putz. I had to disagree with the importance of birth control though. It’s a complete nonissue thrown out there to distract the idiot masses from the dire condition that this country is in and to foment resentment against men and masculinity. It’s sad that such a smart girl fell for it. She had the last word:
Again, missing the point. Increased taxation will not cause a meltdown; this much is true. However, my argument is that the meltdown will be here in short order if this country does nothing to manage its current debt and to avoid taking on more debt. The argument is that increased taxation will be insufficient to fill the hole. While no one is arguing that we should strip grandma of her SS benefits, we do wonder whether Social Security will even be able to pay grandma what she was promised once she becomes of age. Bernie explicitly said that he would expand a program that we already know to be en route to insolvency. We argue against the wisdom of such a move.
Nor am I personally concerned about the “woes of the 1%.” What I am concerned about are the woes of the entire nation if we follow Sanders the Pied Piper down this garden path to hell.
The lesson here: women will always vote with their emotions, even the smart ones. They will always yearn for the avuncular political patriarch to lead them, no matter how much they doth protest. They impugn logic. They will always elect to have security over freedom, they will always choose the candidate who promises to expand the state at the expense of the individual. They will never be aware of what is actually at stake, they will never distill an issue down to brass tacks. They will always put their personal needs and wants ahead of the well-being of the nation and of civilization as a whole. This conversation is precisely why giving them the vote was, like, totes a terrible move.