Bernie Sanders Says "But Seriously, I Do Have a Friend!"

In an apparently brave (or politically sabotaging) move on Saturday, Bernie Sanders claimed to have a friend in Congress.

"And he is really, really conservative," he said. "But you know what, he is a decent guy, and I like him, and he and I are friends. And you find that -- you find the fact that just because you have very significant political differences, doesn't mean to say that you cannot develop friendships with good people."

Maybe you'll recognize him.

Yep, that guy.

This "good person" is Jim Inhofe, a climate change denier on the Senate's committee that handles environmental legislation, a man opposed to women's rights, who supports racial profiling because "all terrorists are Middle Eastern" (LOL*), and who called Sonia Sotomayor a "racist" because she thinks that Latinas have different life experiences than white men (facts are racist, duh). Also, he's such a deep thinker that he thinks that the existence of a snowball in winter is proof that it's not a warmer winter than the year before, despite actual measurements to the contrary. And he wrote a book on "the fraud that is climate change," because why not?** He's an expert on anything he declares himself an expert on! He's a Certified Climate Gynecologist™!

So, what exactly qualifies someone to be a "good person" despite being a racist, sexist, science denier who uses his power to force his religious beliefs on others?

Is it that he takes so much money from the oil and gas industry and has promoted their views in Congress? Because that would be pretty Establishment of him.

Or is it his support for gifts from "employees of lobbying companies who are not registered lobbyists" (legally loopholed gifts from lobbyists)? Because that would be pretty Establishment of him.

Perhaps it's his dedication to unfettered free enterprise? Because that would be pretty Establishment of him.

His opposition to civil rights for anyone other than straight, white, Christian men, including loosening restrictions for phone tapping? Because that would be... yawn this is getting old already.

His opposition to federal standards for the the social safety net? Because... meh. States' rights! Something something.

His support for removing trade controls with "third world" countries? (But not China, because commie pinkos, presumably.) Seriously, this man is actually everything that Sanders falsely accuses Clinton of, plus some other terrible things, and also the antithesis of Sanders' stated ideals. I'm only using the Sanders definition of Establishment here and still: complete fail. Expand to the actual Establishment and yowza. It's also extremely hypocritical for someone to imply bad (but untrue) things about Clinton to demonize her, but celebrate the "goodness" of someone for whom these things are actually true.

No, everyone, look! It's that he's a decent guy! And so likeable!

"He is a decent guy, and I like him, and he and I are friends.... you find the fact that just because you have very significant political differences, doesn't mean to say that you cannot develop friendships with good people."***

Privilege is saying that someone is a "decent guy" and "a friend" when he opposes rights for everyone who isn't in his straight, white, Judeo-Christian, male ingroup-- because you're in his ingroup and no one is trying to impede your rights. These things that he describes as "political differences" (downplaying their importance) aren't mere political differences to me. The man opposes my rights. This isn't some abstract concept to have a casual debate about over dinner and a nice bottle of wine. It may well be for Sanders because no one is trying to take away his rights. To me, people like Inhofe are a genuine threat. This is my life that we're talking about, my health, my equality, my rights. The man opposes my rights and I'm supposed to accept that he's a "good person?" Seriously?

He is not a "decent guy." He's an egomaniacal "Nice Guy" ™ on a power trip. He's the embodiment of The Establishment that Sanders supposedly preaches against-- plus the actual Establishment that includes Sanders. Totally fine.

But Clinton? She's "The Establishment" despite being extremely ideologically similar to Sanders, to his right (but more informed) on foreign policy, and to his left on race and gender issues-- with a side-order of having built alliances through 40 years of activism. She's an appalling excuse for a human being who must be attacked at any and all costs (lying and sexism encouraged!), even if the result is President Trump. Because she's between Sanders and the job he wants.

The extreme far right who actually are bought and paid for? They're good fellas. Quality folk. Don't hold it against them that they oppose your rights. That's just a "political difference." No biggie. They're such decent guys, for some definition of "decent."

Sanders has a friend, ladies and gentlemen. His friend would never support his legislation and thus would not give him what Clinton's numerous friends can give her, but his friend is totally likeable. And isn't that what really matters in a lawmaker? Not fairness, not a familiarity with reality, not ideological similarity to you, not making good laws.

No no no. It's likeability. You want to have a beer with him. You know, if you're a straight, white, Judeo-Christian male. Those other people don't matter anyway. Why do we even call them people?

It's almost like the reasons that Sanders claims to dislike Clinton aren't what he claims they are, since it's ok to be much, much worse than her if you're a guy who isn't running against him.

* Technically, a terrorist in the USA will likely be in Inhofe's ingroup, not "Middle Eastern." People from that group just like to pretend that it's not terrorism if they agree with it, or if it was done by a single person, pretend that it was done by a "person in need of psychological help," who coincidentally, they totally agree with. Oh right, and guess what the conservative white dude terrorists target: the rights that Inhofe opposes for women and minorities. Sucks to be me, sucks to be a minority, sucks the most to be a minority woman!

** I say "why not?" but the real question is "why?" Having reviewed Inhofe's stances on many issues today, I saw a large correlation with the views of the Koch family founded John Birch Society, for which my grandmother was a conspiracy theorist/"Patriot Bookstore" volunteer. Specifically, Inhofe's rationale for climate change denial is that God would not allow us to change the environment, that if the statistics do show changes, that's not because of man but because God is changing the environment for us. Interventionist God is also the reason that Grandma told me that it is impossible for us to run out of oil and the reason that pollution has no bad effects; if it turns out to be a problem, Interventionist God will just fix it for us because he would never allow us to harm the planet or be inconvenienced by a reliance on fossil fuels resulting from a refusal to invest in green energy. Interventionist God believes that the customer is always right. Noninterventionist God is too stoned to care. Thanks, Grandma, for inadvertently teaching me political skepticism.

*** This is similar to Ruth Bader Ginsberg's friendship with Scalia, a man who rolled his eyes at her in court, mansplained gender issues to her, and opposed equality for women. I don't get it. If someone opposes equality for me, he's not a particularly good friend to me, even if he likes opera.

**** I have no idea what "Anti-establishment Post-Grad Slacks" means. Or why they are plaid. But their power is undeniable.