Skip to main content

BERNIE, BLOOMBERG, AND GEORGE SANTAYANA













You know Bernie. You know Bloomberg. Who the hell is George Santayana?

Santayana was a very interesting guy. He came to the USofA from Spain at the age of eight shortly after the US Civil War. Although he spoke of himself as an American, he lived a Euro-centric life, spending his last years in Italy. A poet, novelist, and philosopher, Santayana taught philosophy at Harvard with T. S. Eliot, Robert Frost, Gertrude Stein, and W. E. B. Du Bois among his students. Very influential.

Santayana had one of those minds that translated thought into pithy turns of phrase.

"There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval."

"The Bible is literature, not dogma."

"Sanity is madness put to good use."

What does all of this have to do with Bernie and Bloomberg? Here is the relevant Santayana quote:

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I like a lesser famous part of that line. When experience is not retained, infancy is perpetual.

American Progressives loved Hubert Humphrey. As a US Senator in the 1940s, he successfully argued for the first plank in a Democratic Party platform that called for an end to racial segregation. He was in on the beginnings of the Peace Corps and the Civil Rights Act, Then Humphrey made the mistake - in the eyes of Progressive young Democrats - of accepting LBJ's offer to be his VP. The Vietnam War was a deal breaker for Progressives. They didn't consider the loyalty that Humphrey exhibited to POTUS as in any way explainable. They made a circus of the Chicago convention in 1968.

It can reasonably argued that Progressives gave us Nixon.

When experience is not retained, infancy is perpetual.

Toward the middle of the 2016 Democrat primary season, it became clear that Bernie couldn't win. He did quite well in caucus states, but he simply couldn't make a dent in the early primary states and Hillary rolled up big numbers. What did his supporters have to say about that? The rules are unfair and need to be changed, they said. Primaries should be open so that Republicans who would prefer Bernie can vote for him. And towards the end of the primary season, when the math was insurmountable? We have to change the rules regarding Super Delegates, they said.

Why did Bernie's supporters think that it was OK to change the rules in his favor? Their rationale was simple. Bernie's strength was unexpected. He had almost derailed the Hillary juggernaut. If the rules were just tweaked a little bit in recognition of that strength, Bernie could win. But the rules weren't changed, Bernie lost, and the scorn heaped on the Democratic Party by disappointed Progressives continued right through the general election.

Did Bernie give us Trump? It can be reasonably argued.

When experience is not retained, infancy is perpetual.

Fast forward to today. Bloomberg has propelled himself to the top tier of candidates, current polling placing him third or fourth nationally. His strength is unexpected. He threatens to derail the Bernie juggernaut. If unexpected strength would have been sufficient to change the rules in 2016, why is it not sufficient in 2020 to put Bloomberg on the debate stage?

Bernie's supporters will argue that if the rules weren't changed in 2016, we shouldn't change the rules in 2020, no matter what our position had been four years ago.

That could be called hypocrisy. Or, to be charitable, Bernie's supporters may have simply forgotten their previous positions. Or 2016. Or 1968.

When experience is not retained, infancy is perpetual.







Comments

  1. So true. Thank you for a great summary of today's politics. I voted for Bernie...and then Hillary...in 2016. But not this time. Regardless of the recent wins, I find Bernie too divisive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the kind words. I do find Bernie's supporters on social media obnoxious, but I will vote for him if he becomes the nominee. Trump can't be validated with another win.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

GRAND CAFE OCCITAN: RESTAURANT REVIEW

  We made our way to a new restaurant the other day, up toward the hills past La Liviniere in the small town of Felines-Minervois. None of our party had been there before, but a friend had visited and said that she'd enjoyed it. She's a vegetarian. First clue. Now don't get me wrong. I have no gripe with those who choose to go meatless. I understand the environmental concerns and I understand the horrors of factory farming. But I also understand that form follows function in the design of tools, in the design of appliances, and in the design of human teeth. Our incisors and canines did not develop over the course of hundreds of thousands of years to rend the flesh of a fresh-caught broccoli. We are omnivores by design, Darwinian design. And I enjoy eating omni. Enough preamble... I never went inside the Grand Cafe Occitan. A young lady who would be our server met us at the front door of the nicely pointed old stone house, leading us to a pebble-covered courtyard on the side

MONARCHY, BUTT PATTING, SELF CHECKOUT, AND RANDOM STUFF: #17

  MONARCHY It is not possible to be an English-speaking expat living in Europe without having gained some understanding of how the UK works and how UK policies and politics affect European life. And so, a word about the monarchy is in order today. I'm no monarchist. As an American, I have grown up believing in liberal democracy. Today, I consider myself a democratic socialist. But I have come to appreciate the manner in which British royalty has accommodated itself to the modern world. There is no doubt that accommodation has diminished the role of the monarch. That's probably a good thing. But a diminished monarchy need not necessarily herald the end of the monarchy. Elizabeth's monarchy became simply the personification of her country's flag, to be trotted out to acknowledge community, in good times and in sad times, expressing publicly what was being felt privately. There was a time, during Brexit, when I was furious with Elizabeth. As one of the richest, most well-

THINKING OUT LOUD...