Skip to main content

In Praise Of Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist in a country where Ronald Reagan became an icon warning against creeping socialism. He doesn't want to tax it if it moves, he wants to nationalize it.

He rails against big money in speech after speech. He says the common people have no chance against giant profit machines and their relentless pursuit of the bottom line.

He's right, you know. Actually, I'm gratified that someone on the Left still gets outraged about something. Something real, that is.

He's honest in a business where it doesn't pay to be honest. You've got to admire that, and I do.

I don't believe in socialism, abortion, and "gay rights." Those are the 3 reasons not to consider voting for Bernie Sanders. But I'll tell you this: the worst part of the Republican postwar "fusionism," as they call it, is the conflation of justice and mercy in economics, and the contention that the former either does not exist, or is no legitimate concern of government at any level. There could be no peace, no détente, between two factions with diametrically opposed views on the good of government as such. But such was the force of personality of Ronald Reagan: he delayed a much-needed philosophy debate on the Right for a quarter-century.

If it's "liberal" to say that government is not a necessary evil, but a positive good, so be it. Our Founders limited it precisely to facilitate the general welfare, not to deny that it exists.

Senator Sanders has, at the least, reminded us that systemic economic injustice is a scandal, not an unfortunate outcome in an otherwise functioning system. For that, I am thankful.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un