Bernie ♥ his myth of Denmark
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline points out the ways in which Bernie Sanders’ vision of turning the US into Denmark is a dream based on a myth of what Denmark actually is, and what other Scandinavian countries he admires actually are. In his post, he quotes this op-ed by Fareed Zakaria that appeared in the WaPo:
Take billionaires. Sanders has been clear on the topic: “Billionaires should not exist.” But Sweden and Norway both have more billionaires per capita than the United States — Sweden almost twice as many. Not only that, these billionaires are able to pass on their wealth to their children tax-free. Inheritance taxes in Sweden and Norway are zero, and in Denmark 15 percent. The United States, by contrast, has the fourth-highest estate taxes in the industrialized world at 40 percent.
Zakaria also notes that Sweden, another country much admired by Sanders, had to abandon the sort of economic policies Sanders likes in order to keep itself from going under:
In Sweden, government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product doubled from 1960 to 1980, going from approximately 30 percent to 60 percent. But as Swedish commentator Johan Norberg points out, this experiment in Sanders-style democratic socialism tanked the Swedish economy. Between 1970 and 1995, he notes, Sweden did not create a single net new job in the private sector. In 1991, a free-market prime minister, Carl Bildt, initiated a series of reforms to kick-start the economy. By the mid-2000s, Sweden had cut the size of its government by a third and emerged from its long economic slump.
Mirengoff concludes:
Sanders favors policies much more along the lines of those that failed Scandinavia in the 1960s and 1970s. Or perhaps a mixture of those policies and the ones that are failing in Venezuela today.
You could try running those facts by any Sanders supporters you know. But I wonder whether it would matter to them. I think Sanders’ popularity is a combination of many things, but one of them is that his promises sound well-intentioned and idealistic to his followers, many of whom may not actually expect him to achieve his goals. It’s a sort of virtue-signaling gone wild.
Does Bernie himself even believe that he could accomplish what he promises? I doubt it. But he sounds sincere – at least to his followers. As either Jean Giraudoux or George Burns (quite a combo!) said: “The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you’ve got it made.”
Is Sanders faking? I don’t know. But it actually would be better if he were faking, because if he believes his own blather – and somehow manages to convince enough people to get elected – we’d be in even more trouble than if he were just saying it in order to get votes.
What do I think? I think he’s sincerely sincere.
And because in my youth an enormous number of Broadway show tunes became embedded in my head, right after I wrote that last line I thought of this apropos number from “Bye Bye Birdie.” I saw the show in its original run on Broadway at exactly the right age to love it. I had no interest in the movie that came out a few years later, but here it is because the clip features the song I’m talking about. Incidentally – and I only learned this from the YouTube comments – the building in this scene is the same set later used for “Back to the Future”:
Buffalo Bills, (Meredith Willson is the shizzle): Sincere
A couple of anecdotal case studies: I have two friends, men in their 60s, who for most of their adult lives have been zealously orthodox Catholics. I mean the kind of zeal that dominates one’s life completely, leads one to join and organize activist movements, and that sort of thing. For reasons unclear to me, both of them in the last ten years have as far as I can tell dumped Catholicism for progressive politics and a spiritual-but-not-religious attitude. Or, I should say, replaced with. They come very close to veneration for Bernie Sanders, the sort of veneration that a certain number of leftists had for Obama in the beginning–“Light-bearer” or whatever it was.
I can tell you with as much certainty as is possible in such matters that neither of them would be in the least deterred by the sort of facts about Scandinavian “democratic socialism” that you put forward. At this point in our lives my only contact with these guys is their Facebook posts, but they seem to be totally possessed by the utopian vision that Sanders offers. They are completely sincere, and obviously they believe Sanders is, too. For what it’s worth, I feel pretty sure he is.
The only young people I know who are equally enthralled have the same mystical faith and would be equally impervious to these inconvenient facts. I’m not sure either group would even bother arguing, because the purity of the vision is what matters.
As I have written here before, the American “audience” that rejected Communism in the Depression-Korean War period was just too tough an audience for the Communists of that day.
For that American audience —survivors all– was tough, skeptical, realistic, patriotic, and grounded in their shared view of American values and American history.
Thus, the last couple of generations of Leftists have been busy reshaping that audience—into one now not so tough, skeptical, or realistic, one heavily propagandized but less well-educated, a much more credulous audience, with a dim view of America, its history and values, and with far less in the way of historical knowledge and analytical skills.
So, of course, having no personal experience with Communism, and with a general aversion to all things patriotic and our American patrimony, the members of this new contemporary audience think that the Trojan Horse of Socialism—Communism in thin disguise—today’s version of “Greeks bearing gifts,” provides the promise of a bright future that will be “fair to all,” little knowing of or paying mind to the past history that spawned the adage that “you can vote you way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.”
Thus, Bernie can spout all sorts of promises of free “pie in the sky” and the Utopia to come, and supposed cost figures—or none at all—and he is all too credulously believed by a dangerously large number of people.
Bernie is very very serious about what he wants to destroy. Too many of his followers would be happy to help him. That’s the way cults work.
LOL. Even seeing a young Ann Margret didn’t improve that one lol.
I somehow missed the play and the movie back in the day. Now I’m glad I did.
… but I appreciated the ref’ nonetheless.
You could try running those facts by any Sanders supporters you know. But I wonder whether it would matter to them.
A dear cousin of mine is a Sanders votary. I don’t bother discussing the problems with Sanders’ proposals with him, because it would require he master an idiom and mode of thought that is completely alien to him. He doesn’t have any background in subjects relating to business and economics.
Something noted by Tom Wolfe and Paul Hollander: certain sorts of political language are attractive to people with a certain sort of history. I believe this to be so in his case, so arguing contra his politics is, in effect, arguing with some deep structures in his psyche. (I don’t believe anyone in his more immediate family shares his politics; he has a more proximate cousin than yours truly who I think is a fairly mainline Democrat of the old school and the rest are either not invested in political disputes or are Republicans). And, yes, he’s a vociferous atheist, also something his more immediate relations do not share.
Fifteen and more years ago I used to think I was perceptive in noting that progressive politics is a species of religion.* Now it’s a blindingly obvious truism.
*Or “substitute for,” if you want to be picky about whether “religion” has to include some element of the supernatural.
Economist John Cochrane points out that the reason Denmark spends less on health care than the US is because it is . . . poorer. That’s also true of other European countries, which fit right on the “regression” line.
Fifteen and more years ago I used to think I was perceptive in noting that progressive politics is a species of religion.
I wouldn’t say ‘religion’. However, political language expresses their understanding of themselves and their personal narrative. Among ordinary people, only ceremonial political language does that, and only in regard to small facets of themselves. Heather Mac Donald has spoken of this, because her work involves speaking to audiences often liberally studded with crybullies. In her view, the students to which she speaks (most recently at Colgate) are emotionally invested in an understanding of themselves as victims, a self-understanding promoted by ‘co-dependent’ faculty and administration.
IMO, Bernie is in it for the money. He probably was inspired by utopianism orginally, now I think its the greenbacks. Unless he is far dumber than I imagine, he knows present day Sweden and Denmark have capitalistic economies. Its a con to sucker in people who are utopian dreamers and can recite the lyrics of Lennon’s Imagine in their sleep.
IMO, Bernie is in it for the money. He probably was inspired by utopianism orginally, now I think its the greenbacks.
He’s 79 years old. He was vested for an agreeable pension a decade ago (atop his wife’s retirement income and their Social Security). He already owns three pieces of real estate. A man his age has a life expectancy of about 9 years. You fancy he thinks he can take it with him?
For a variety of reasons, this was a plausible explanation for Dennis Kucinich conduct 15 years ago (Robert Stacy McCain laid out the case in 2008). Not Sanders.
Art Deco,
Do you think Bloomberg or Buffit think they can take it with them?
Bernie Sander has one child, Levi, according to Wikipedia. That’s the usual thing that drives aged earners to earn more. Or a much younger wife, although Jane is only 9 years younger. A steep inheritance tax tends to kill the leave-it-to-the-kids motive.
So it looks like Biden will win strongly in the South Carolina primary. What a choice for Democrats; a lifelong communist and apologist for dictators or… a senile serial liar and dirty old man.
Bloomberg is busy spending his money at a rate that suggests he isn’t intending to leave much.
Buffett is merely playing a game he’s played most of his life. The money is merely the score for him.
parker on February 29, 2020 at 5:44 pm said:
Art Deco,
Do you think Bloomberg or Buffit think they can take it with them?
* * *
“At some point, you’ve made enough money.” Barack “you, not us” Obama
https://nypost.com/2017/04/25/when-will-obama-have-made-enough-money/
A lot of people from Cuba still remember what communism is like.
https://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2020/02/29/what-bernie-sandersand-his-fellow-and-abundant-castroloving-dupes-and-propagandistsomit-n2562179
‘He’s 79 years old.’
His choice for vice president will be pretty critical.
Although…I can’t believe he’ll actually win the Presidency.
SueK on February 29, 2020 at 11:24 pm said:
‘He’s 79 years old.’
His choice for vice president will be pretty critical.
* * *
I just pointed out the same thing on the Biden wins Primary thread.
When you elect really really old people (hey, I’m young at 67!), this is a serious problem.
LI points out that Sanders has some not-very-civil supporters.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/02/berners-with-bullhorns-take-their-bernie-war-to-the-homes-of-opponents/
As a commenter pointed out:
“Protesting is our right
No, it is NOT. Your rights include “peaceable assembly” and “petition”, NOT “protesting” in the sense you’re using it.
Of course, a Bernie supporter not understanding constitutional rights is not really a surprise….”
Has anyone else seen this one?
I suspect there are lots of “little known” stories about Sanders that will surface in the general election, just as there were “little known” stories about Trump and every other presidential candidate. However, a lot of those were “not news” until he became a candidate on the wrong side, and Bernie’s seem to have always been news — just not effectively used against him at the time.
Maybe his Vermont voters just didn’t care, or even agreed with him — but that doesn’t play well outside the state.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2020/02/27/heres-a-devastating-story-about-bernie-sanders-why-havent-his-rivals-exploited-it-n2562002
More myths about Sanders shattered by doing just a little bit of what we used to call investigative reporting.
https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/02/29/whoops-report-socialist-bernie-mistakenly-boards-wrong-private-jet/
This was my favorite part, but it was only an unsubstantiated Tweet in the story:
We judge socialism by its intentions, but capitalism by its effects. More broadly, this is how we judge enemies and friends, especially if we are almost entirely emotion-driven, as socialists tend to be.
I doubt Sanders cares about the money per se, but like Bloomberg and others he may care a great deal about the influence it gives him, and the heroic sense of his place in society, especially as his life draws to a close.
We judge socialism by its intentions, but capitalism by its effects. More broadly, this is how we judge enemies and friends, especially if we are almost entirely emotion-driven, as socialists tend to be.
Good point.
Bernie Sander has one child, Levi, according to Wikipedia. That’s the usual thing that drives aged earners to earn more.
His son is pushing 50.
Do you think Bloomberg or Buffit think they can take it with them?
Those men are highly competitive vocational businessmen for whom assets and income are a way of keeping score. So is Trump. That doesn’t describe the Clintons, or the Obamas, or the Sanders.
My Salmon crested Molluscan Cockatoo (i no longer have) was named after Conrad.
Its funny that this is the trope..
but you would not think the same about a great basketball player who was able to keep playing
you would not think that of any other great, in painting, music, etc..
you ONLY think that people great at earning money should stop doing what they are good at… and not blink and eye that the trope is so wrong…
my 2nd girlfriend (who family still knows), was worth 40 million in the 1980s..
she taught me a lot about the bullcrap that goes for thinking among people
the above is one of them
ever think that business and such is what they like and they are really good at it?
and that the money is NOT the point at all? that the money doesn’t go to people who are greedy for it, but to people who are really great at what they do, and keep doing…
most people who want money dont want it for what they are good at
most people dont want to be so great at anything, the money is incidental.
most of the wealthy people who are my friends have this attitude
the money is incidental, secondary…
With regard to European countries and lefty arguments that we could/should do what they do — these countries are all broke. If the USA didn’t subsidize their military and their healthcare in huge amounts, they’d all be broken.
Without the profits to be made in the US, there would be no new drugs or medical technology. And these countries would see their drug costs soar.
these countries are all broke.
They’re not. With the exception of Italy, Greece, and Portugal, the ratio of central government debt to gross domestic product in these places is lower than ours.
Debt to GDP is a rather strange measure as I’m sure you must be aware. The US has substantial assets that European countries don’t. [Stock to stock ratios are far more instructive than a stock to flow ratio in this context. Especially since the flows are often apples to oranges.]
The point remains regardless. Without substantial subsidy by the US, the European nations would be broken. They can only support their rickety and underperforming welfare states because we handle their national defense, our economy creates the drugs and medical technology that they ride for free, and our economy enables them to get cut rate pricing on the drugs they use.
Again, if they didn’t have us propping them up, they’d collapse.