Bernie Says: "Vote for Me! I Don't Have Any Friends!"

XKCD

There are so many things about this primary that confuse me: absurd but believed conspiracies; overt but seemingly undetected nonsense propaganda; claims that women are too crazy to detect sexism combined with claims that it's sexist of women to disagree with that; pretenses that everything that Clinton does in her campaign was actually done by Sanders; double standards; harassment campaigns; applying the methods of [rhymes with lamer date] to an election to try to ruin a qualified woman’s career (seriously, google); an idea that badgering women will force us to vote with the badger-dgers; and of course, an obsession with the nature of vagina-based voting.

But not just any people-- good people, my people. I’m very confused, appalled, and disheartened. How did the Democrats devolve into Republicans and turn on a candidate that they loved and respected just a year ago? Weren’t we the party that was better than that? Weren’t we the ones who could politely agree to disagree, compromise, and move on, "we don't need no stinking badgers?"

I guess I should have known better. This is the internet, after all, home of the meritocracy-in-which-only-Eurasian-men-deserve-merit, heart of the blind privilege rage machine.

But what really and truly confounds me is the idea of friendlessness as a virtue.

"The Establishment"

Bernie Sanders talks near constantly about "The Establishment" and how it works against us to help the extremely privileged gain more power over us. He pounds away at that word and we all know what he means-- we think-- I mean... well... he must mean what I mean. Right? He claims that The Establishment is an economic power, which is true, but then he attacks civil rights groups as part of The Establishment if they endorse Clinton for clear and accurate reasons that buck the establishment. "The Establishment" is bigger than just an economic problem.

Any oppressive power is part of The Establishment. Cops killing black children or arresting peaceful protesters without facing consequences for that are part of The Establishment. Gender discrimination in the workplace can force women to stay in abusive relationships by disallowing them money to escape-- part of The Establishment. There are all sorts of intertwiney tendrils that weave into a giant rug to smother us, while telling us that it's for our own good. (Thus, speaketh The Rug of Oppression.) I mean, it has to include patriarchy; the Establishment is also known as "The Man." (That was mostly a joke, but seriously.)

But Sanders uses "The Establishment" as a dog whistle for anyone who gives an advantage to someone who isn't him, without mentioning why they chose to do that. Clinton has given speeches on Wall Street and thus has "Wall Street friends:" Establishment. Clinton has Planned Parenthood's endorsement: Establishment. Clinton gets the endorsement of 170 grassroots black female leaders: Establishment. Clinton gets John Lewis' endorsement: Establishment.

Clinton gets the endorsement of "mothers of unarmed black boys killed by police who faced no repercussions:" Establishment. Seriously, think hard about that last one cause that's some messed up shit right there. Trayvon's mother is "The Establishment." What the actual fuck?

So what gives?

"'[T]he Establishment' ... precisely because of its vagueness and its shapelessness, can be used in almost any country about almost any thing," according to a dejected Henry Fairlie, the dude who credited himself with the term's modern usage. His intended meaning had been lost.

Sanders' strategy is repetitive use of loaded language that causes a negative emotional response, while using it to mean "anyone other than me and my friends." He's acting like he is cutting The Establishment away with a scalpel and surgeon's hands but the weapon in his hand is actually a two-foot diameter cartoon hammer and he's playing whack-a-mole.

He's using propaganda techniques. And since he's a good liberal, he recycles: referencing old, familiar propaganda from his youth. He doesn't even have to want the advantage that the other person has; not having it makes him a common man underdog. Everybody loves an underdog. The claims don't even have to be accurate, so long as you froth people up enough to cause an outrage short-circuit prior to the truth reaching their fact-checking processors. 

I'm not saying this because other candidates aren't using propaganda techniques. They all are; it's totally fine and normal and expected. That's how elections work. And that's why when you see things like this, you need to stop yourself, think, research, and then determine if the intended result was the actual result. If they don't match, the propaganda is being used to try to trick you into believing something unbelievable, at which point you need to stop treating it as credible.

If you go back to my examples of Sanders calling things "The Establishment," you'll notice that those Clinton advantages are actually people: 

• Civil rights leaders and crime victims, who say that she has worked closely with them to try to alleviate the injustices against them.
• People that she has worked with in previous jobs, who admire her and are certain of her value: Congressmen; Executive Branch officials and workers; and most likely, the Ladies from the Bench. Probably some Men from the Bench as well.
• Congressional candidates and local party chapter workers who she is helping with fundraising.
• Officials from the party that she has worked with for decades to help them achieve success.
• Power brokers and lobbyists and unions, oh my! 
• But not the nurses' union, because they endorsed Sanders.

We're talking about Clinton having friends. And back to my previous post, we're talking about Clinton having earned friends through hard and successful work over a long period of time. Sanders treats their loyalty as some sort of mystery that can only be explained by "monetary bribes to The Establishment by Clinton." And despite extensive research during decades of right wing harassment campaigns against her, no wrongdoing has ever been found. None. The idea that she could be bribing people and never get caught is ludicrous, but it's assumed as a premise which is then used to prove that the premise is correct.

Battlecry: Because she's slick! She runs a good con! She's cold, calculating, and clever-- that's how she got where she is, not through the hard work that her friends say that she has done with and for them. Where there's smoke there must be... I dunno... um... a Smoking Vagina. Or something.

And now we're back at trying to deny her credit for her work, by pretending that she didn't work at all. Sigh.

The Cold, Calculating Bitch... with Friends?

If you were to take the media at their word, you'd think that Clinton is a cold-hearted bitch who cries crocodile tears. Because she's a woman, she's supposed to be warm and friendly. And if you talk to people who have worked with her in a job or in activism, they go on and on about how warm she is, how she really listens to them, tries to understand their views, and incorporates that understanding into her agenda. If you go out and read interviews with her coworkers, they say that she showed interest in them personally and always wished them a happy birthday. She makes them feel valued as people. They consider her a friend. So where does this coldness claim come from? She doesn't cry enough. Except when she does.

Does anyone say that Trump is "cold?" That man could refreeze the polar ice caps while standing on the equator. People like him because he's cold. They just never use the word "cold." Is he ambitious? Go Trump! Is he a raving asshole? Hooray! This is really only a thing that women are judged negatively for. The only way to reconcile the claim that she's cold with the behavior that her allies relate is to say that she's faking being warm-- which in turn implies that those women and black people who say she's warm are unintelligent, gullible, unsophisticated, [Insert racist and sexist stereotypes here.]

Circling back to people of the "Establishment" dog-whistle for "she has friends," Sanders ignores their reasons for supporting her, despite them detailing the reasons in public, substituting those reasons for implications that there's some sort of conspiracy against him for being an underdog. That's not particularly accurate but it's extremely dismissive of the (again) women and black people whose opinions are ignored in favor of negative stereotypes. This is really not ok.

The Man Going His Own Way

He bucks The Establishment! He refuses to work with The Establishment! He signed a contract saying that he would support The Establishment and broke it because he's so anti-Establishment. Vote for Bernie! He Doesn't Have Any Friends!

Did you hear about that contract? I only saw a few people mention it. During last week's Compulsive Veracity Engine Grain of Salt Distribution Process, I found some information that made me want to throw my computer across the room in Sanders-related frustration. He's thumbing his nose at the entire party on the issue of "downmarket/ downticket" elections and then proudly using that as underdog cred. This is monumentally, preposterously foolish sabotage.

Downmarket Elections

In the Presidential election, we have one side with fairly similar candidates, each with benefits and flaws; and on the other side, we have racist, homophobic, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, war-mongering militant Dominionists, plus a nearly identical candidate who isn't a Dominionist but he plays one on TV. It's pretty important to keep them out of office, because I like having rights and stuff.

With Dominionist Boogeymen in control of both the House and the Senate, if we only get a Dem into the White House, we will just have more years of gridlocked inability to accomplish anything. They aren't going to suddenly cooperate if there's a woman or a socialist as President instead of a black guy. We've got to get them out of as many Congressional seats, governor's mansions, and state legislatures as possible. These are the downmarket elections.

Traditionally, Presidential candidates and other Lord High Muckeymucks give support for those elections by attending fundraising events, diverting donations to them, and working with the party to form a cohesive platform and election plan. Clinton and Sanders signed an agreement to do these things and Clinton has followed through. Sanders, on the other hand, decided that he shouldn't help with these elections because the party is The Establishment and that would be contrary to his anti-Establishment ideological purity. Now, that's great and all, bully for him, no one cares that he went back on his word. (Of course.) But we still need the party's Presidential candidate to cooperate in this process if we want to get control away from the Bigot Brigade.

What I'm saying is that the Presidential candidates and the party are supposed to be in a mutualistic relationship, but in the case of Sanders, it's actually a parasitic relationship. And the parasite is furious that The Establishment isn't giving him as many nutrients as its giving to the symbiote that gives back.

Then, of course, there is the irony of a guy running on a socialist platform while loudly refusing to support anyone other than himself. I'm pretty much drowning in "can't even" over here.

So what's the plan for downmarket elections?

Magical thinking.

Because Sanders will drive people to the polls en masse, the Party candidates will skate through, no problem. And then, I guess, they'll be happy that he got them elected, even though he refused to do anything to help them and used that refusal as an example of his excellent policies.

But the reality is that he's stabbing those candidates in the back. He could use his momentum to help them, but he's proud that he doesn't. In fact, he insults them for working with the party and with a candidate who is willing to help them. That makes them part of The Establishment. So let's suppose that his momentum would carry them into office. What then?

Do you think they'll support his policies? He's proven that he does not support those people. Why would people happily help someone who could have supported them but bragged about not doing so? And this is on top of the complete lack of support that he gets in Congress now. He doesn't have allies! He's a lone wolf! He's fighting The Establishment by refusing to cooperate with potential allies!

This is where he's transitions from "Vote for Me! I Don't Have Any Friends!" to "Vote for Me! I Don't Have the Friends I Will Need to Accomplish My Goals! But if Anyone Stands in my Way, My Populous Movement Will Force Them to Bend to My Will!" I say the following with the very large caveat that I have long admired Sanders and I think that at his core he's decent guy despite the absolute nastiness and dishonesty of his campaign, but does that sound like "We'll Build a Wall and Mexico Will Pay for It" to you? Because it does to me.

He's set himself up so that if he wins, he still fails.

After researching this topic, I don't believe that his intended result was the actual result.

All images in the post were found in the wild.