Election 2016

Election 2016 Needs a Radical, But Bernie Sanders Isn't It

Despite his intentions, Sanders is an unwitting defender of the status quo.

|

DonkeyHotey/Flickr

We could use a radical in the presidential race—someone who really challenges the status quo—but Bernie Sanders isn't it. Sanders of course calls himself a democratic socialist, but that tell us almost nothing. One gets the impression the socialist label was pinned on him and, after resisting it, he decided socialist sounded romantic and embraced it.

Nevertheless, whether you like socialism or not, Sanders is not a socialist: he calls neither for nationalizing the means of production nor for replacing the market economy with central planning. Yet that is what socialism came to mean in the mid-20th century. Democratic socialism meant that socialism would be achieved through the ballot box.

It is worth noting that in late 19th- and early 20th-century America, socialism was an umbrella term that was also used by radical free-market, or individualist, anarchists like Benjamin R. Tucker and Francis Dashwood Tandy, who called his 1896 book Voluntary Socialism. A socialist then was anyone who objected that workers were cheated out of their full reward and that prices of goods were fixed above the cost of production; in contrast to state socialists, free-market socialists attributed these evils to "capitalism," by which they meant the system of government privileges for well-connected owners of capital.

What Sanders favors is an expanded welfare/regulatory state, i.e., more of what we have. When asked about socialism, he praises Medicare. Medicare, however, is not socialism, nor would single-payer for all be socialism. Under state-socialized medicine, government would own and operate the hospitals, and doctors and nurses would be government employees—like the post office without competition. Under single-payer government would pay the bills for private-sector medical care and impose controls that powerful interests would inevitably manipulate to their advantage. Sound familiar?

The welfare state was established by western ruling classes to tamp down discontent among the powerless that had the potential to turn revolutionary. The father of the modern welfare state, Otto von Bismarck, intended government-administered social insurance to keep the Prussian working class loyal to the regime and out of the Marxist and liberal (libertarian) camps. In England, workers initially resisted the welfare state because it was seen as a move by the aristocracy to co-opt the labor movement, which sought to redress its grievances directly.

Sometimes Sanders says that being a socialist means merely that he's neither a Democrat or a Republican. That's not terribly informative. At other times he says it signifies concern about gross income disparities, the high cost of college, and the lack of access to medical care. Again, this doesn't tell us much since radical libertarians share those concerns. What matters are the solutions. Two people can look at the same social problem and argue over whether the best approach is more government, less government, or no government at all. Sanders's preference, more government, would mean expanded bureaucratic control and special-interest "capture," i.e., more of what already ails us.

In 1986, Sanders said, "All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small 'd.' I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives." Considering that Sanders's program would empower bureaucrats rather than people, one could consistently endorse Sanders's objective while opposing his proposals. (See my "Free-Market Socialism.")

He also said, "What being a socialist means is … that you hold out … a vision of society where poverty is absolutely unnecessary, where international relations are not based on greed … but on cooperation … where human beings can own the means of production and work together rather than having to work as semi-slaves to other people who can hire and fire." Again, these are objectives that any radical free-market libertarian could embrace. Where Sanders goes wrong is in aiming to empower bureaucrats and politicians.

Sanders cannot or will not see that expanding the welfare/regulatory bureaucracy would not help those outside the ruling elite. Beefing up the state won't liberate us. Despite his intentions, Sanders is an unwitting defender of the status quo.

Where is the radical who will make the case for individual liberation and purely voluntary social cooperation through freed markets?

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog.

NEXT: The Politicians Debating the Budget Are Lost in Wonderland

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow, an almost-critical article about Bernie Sanders on Reason. I guess we should be happy for small miracles.

    Although one would think that a prominent libertarian journal would offer slightly more frequent and forceful criticism of a presidential candidate who’s a self-declared socialist seeking to increase taxes on basically everyone, grow the bureaucracy, regulate everything that can be regulated, hand out more money than anyone has ever handed out before, and is fully in the pocket of the social justice mob.

    Baby steps, I guess. I mean, it’s just so much easier to make fun of Ted Cruz. I heard that guy believes in God… can you even imagine? LOLOLOLOL, amirite?

    1. If you read the article, he actually criticizes Sanders on all those fronts except for a mention of the SJW part.

      I think the reason Reason (heh) hasn’t had as many disparaging articles about Bernie is that they are focusing more on the Republican camp, which has a lot more to criticize simply because there are still 4 times as many buffoons running as there are buffoons running for the Dems. And, in fairness, Reason did a wonderful send-up of Bernie shortly after he declared his candidacy and stupidly proclaimed that childhood hunger is caused by underarm deodorant.

      Honestly, what more can you say after a statement like that? We can laugh about Carson’s pyramid theories, or Trump’s schemes for getting Mexico to pay for a wall, but how do you top a statement like deodorant makes children starve? Granted, Bernie is trying — such as his pronouncements about Denmark, which the Danes quickly refuted (also reported by Reason), and he will no doubt make some other groaners before he’s through, but unless Biden changes his mind and jumps in, we probably won’t get anything funnier this cycle than the deodorant famine.

      1. Deodorant Famine

        I can’t decide, college rock or death metal band name?

  2. You know who else was a hyphenated socialist?

    1. Saint-Simon?

    2. Karl von Sacher-Masoch?

      1. +1 Venus in Furs

    3. I assume you’re talking about national socialists. I recommend you make this comparison to a sanders supporter. They get so mad.

      1. Yeah, but they are perpetually mad. About everything. Because they are infantile.

      2. Yeah, but they are perpetually mad. About everything. Because they are infantile.

  3. “…a vision of society where poverty is absolutely unnecessary.”

    Huh? Wha? Huh? Is he implying poverty is done on purpose? Not sure what this means.

    As for socialism, look, yes technically no one is a socialist. I try to be fair about the term seeing how progressives absolutely mangle libertarian principles (ie conflate with Objectivism), but A) you can’t overtake the means of production outright (I know. Never say never) but you sure as hell grab as much of it as possible mostly influencing production through excessive regulations and taxes as well as subsidizing certain industries bringing very close to socialism, B) what the heck do you think nationalizing things like Hydro and Crown Corporations (in the Commonwealth) are? To me, that’s socialism – or socialism by other means and C) all which permit and promote the growth of the welfare state. They will always have their hand out, and then a second hand. It will never be enough as Sanders shows until – poof. No more other people’s money.

    Socialists don’t seem to comprehend that in order to keep the system going you need GROWTH and the best system to offer growth is capitalism. It’s a frustrating catch-22 for those morons.

    1. By ‘no one’ I mean the candidates.

    2. B) what the heck do you think nationalizing things like Hydro and Crown Corporations (in the Commonwealth) are? To me, that’s socialism – or socialism by other means

      It’s more like fascism, really, but you can’t use the term fascism anymore because it’s devolved into a hackneyed synonym for racism, or nationalism (or racist nationalism).

      1. Fascism is the merging of corporate and government interests. I can accept that.

      2. No, no, no! Fascism is when the corporations control the government because the government doesn’t have enough power to control the corporations! It’s a libertarian wet-dream! Libertarians are fascists! Liberty is tyranny of the rich!

        Whereas socialism is democratic control of industry! The industry belongs to the government which is the people, so the people own all industry and make decisions democratically! Power to the people!

      3. I find Mussolini’s view of fascism to be the most accurate. That guy was at least honest in saying the individual only existed to ensure the glory of the state. Progressives have the same warped and immoral view but with a double dose of mendacity.

        1. I always thought that Progressivism (even in 1900) was fascism repackaged for an American people who wouldn’t accept fascism because they still believed in freedom

  4. “…human beings have the right to control their own lives.” Considering that Sanders’s program would empower bureaucrats rather than people…

    You don’t understand! When you empower government, you empower the people! Because government is the people! It says so right there in the Constitution when it says “We the people!” It’s the rich and the corporations that are not the people! They are parasites that intentionally cause poverty and destruction in their ruthless quest for immoral profits! If not for government, the corporations would enslave us all! Power to the people!

    1. Someone needs to hand ‘ole Bernie a dictionary because that is not what democracy means. Democracy is a political system that privileges the majority over the individual, so really a democracy is the exact opposite of what he says it is. In a democracy, you don’t get to live how you want to live, you get to live in whatever way the lastest straw poll says you get to live. Ironically, only capitalism, the very economic system that he derides, allows people to live as they see fit.

      1. Wrong again! Government is the people! Why is that so hard to understand? With democracy the people decide how to live their lives! In capitalism the rich and the corporations decide how people live their lives! The corporations enslave their workers while ripping off their customers, meanwhile they destroy the environment while they’re at it! Why do you lick the corporate jack-boot that holds you down?

        1. Government is the anal rape we decide to do together.

    2. Actually, government is a criminal enterprise that works in concert with moneyed interests to exploit the public. If we are ever to have real reform we need to quit voting for incumbents. They are all crooks.

      1. Government only exploits the public because it doesn’t have enough power to control the rich and the corporations that control it! That’s why the government (we the people) needs more power! So it (we) can control the corporations that control it (us)! Power to the people!

      2. Government is akin to the mafia minus the traditions and the ethics code.

  5. We are a long way from having a “radical” make it to the general election for president. Keep an eye on the fortunes of Carson and Trump. They will be out or trailing the field by convention time. The party bosses will simply not allow an “outsider” to get the nomination. Too much illicit money at stake.

    1. “Keep an eye on the fortunes of Carson and Trump. They will be out or trailing the field by convention time.”

      And you can add Bernie to that group. The party bosses wanted Hillary vs Jeb, but since Jeb has failed to get any traction whatsoever, they will back their second choice, Rubio. It will be Hillary vs. Rubio. Just wait and see.

  6. Nevertheless, whether you like socialism or not, Sanders is not a socialist: he calls neither for nationalizing the means of production nor for replacing the market economy with central planning.

    Socialism has to do with an elite telling everyone else how to live their lives. These stupid political-science definitions do not fit reality.

    Socialism has always been about improving human nature by removing human nature. From the factory towns of Robert Owen and Frederich Engels to the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders, it’s always been about fixing other people by force.

    Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

    1. Socialism has to do with an elite telling everyone else how to live their lives.

      That’s something socialism, fascism, dictatorships, monarchies, and theocracies all share. That is, they are all statist or even totalitarian. The question is which kind of statist Sanders actually is. And among those, Sanders is not a socialist, he tends more towards fascism.

      Why does it matter? Because socialism and fascism appeal to different groups of people, and they require different arguments to oppose them.

      1. Yes, all those systems share the characteristics that I listed. Congratulations on getting my point.

        Sanders wants to tell the rest of us how to live. Whether that ideology is called Democratic Socialism or Something Else matters not to me. He’s a statist and that’s that.

        1. Sanders wants to tell the rest of us how to live. Whether that ideology is called Democratic Socialism or Something Else matters not to me. He’s a statist and that’s that.

          Well, it may not “matter to you”. But it matters to people who actually need to debate and criticize his political programs, because arguments against socialism aren’t going to be very convincing to people intent on voting in a fascist, and vice versa.

      2. Maybe you missed my second paragraph. Socialism has, from the beginning, been about improving Society. It stated in the industrial towns at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and was morphed by the subsequent writings of Marx and others. It is about fixing people and saving them from themselves. This is my point.

        Sanders is a fixer. He wants to fix the free enterprise system because he doesn’t like human nature. Unfortunately, the only way to rid humans of their nature is to kill them. And this is what Socialism leads to–killing all those who won’t or can’t conform. Sanders is a Socialist.

  7. Sanders’s preference, more government, would mean expanded bureaucratic control and special-interest “capture,” i.e., more of what already ails us.

    Sanders’s preference is for more government regulation and redistribution while leaving the means of production in private hands. That’s not a new idea, and it has a name…

    One gets the impression the socialist label was pinned on him and, after resisting it, he decided socialist sounded romantic and embraced it.

    It sounds more “romantic” than the more accurate label of “fascist”, in the same sense that death by guillotine sounds more “romantic” than death by a thousand cuts.

    1. Sanders is hardly a defender of the private sector. He wants to expand the VA and not privatize it. He wants to radically redistribute wealth which is something fascists don’t claim. He wants single payer which coupled with EMTALA effectively gives government control over the healthcare system.

      Sheldon can try to hide behind the pedantic fig leaf that he’s not a socialist because the corporate letterhead doesn’t say ‘a subsidiary of gov’t enterprises,’ but that doesn’t changw the fact that he’s fine with state control over vast swathes of the economy. He’s only corporatist as much as it takes to come to power.

      1. Privatize the VA is code for cap and take away benefits. In an analysis of single-payer health care lets look at Canada which covers all citizens and spends just 8.7% of GDP on health care costs whereas the US spends 11.8% of GDP on health care and has over 57 million people under/not insured.

        1. That’s nice. This would increase with single payer. Vermont scrapped their single payer idea specifically due to how much it would cost.

          You provide “free healthcare” and you will get more of it. Then there is the issue of wait times, rationing care, needing to purchase private insurance since not everything is covered. Have you considered the reason for it being so high in the first place for the United State is due to the heavy government involvement in medicare, medicaid and regulations?

          How does one cap benefits if they are being taken away?

        2. Also the VA is really not in good shape…and they spend quite a bit per patient

      2. He wants to radically redistribute wealth which is something fascists don’t claim. […] He wants single payer which coupled with EMTALA effectively gives government control over the healthcare system.

        Read the NSDAP party program; wealth redistribution and government health care were core parts of their program.

        but that doesn’t changw the fact that he’s fine with state control over vast swathes of the economy

        Correct, and that is what fascism is about at its core: something vaguely resembling a “market economy” with private property and a middle class, but under tight state control; that’s in contrast to socialism and communism, which want to do away with private property, markets, and a middle class altogether.

  8. Despite his intentions, Sanders is an unwitting defender of the status quo.

    Heh. Bern!

  9. This is fear-mongering distortion. Since its clear that Bernie Sanders employs the Denmark model for democratic socialist concepts lets look at how some of those programs actually work. There’s a good article on WaPo this week where Cathie Jo Martin, a professor of political science at Boston University, whose book “The Political Construction of Business Interests,” looks at how business and government work together to shape labor policies.

    Martin says, “Denmark has very strong, broadly representative national employers’ associations and unions” and “although these groups play a smaller role today in negotiating wages through collective bargaining, they remain powerful in policy-making processes. This means that many fewer public policies are developed through the legislature in Denmark than in the United States. Because public policy is largely set by stakeholders rather than by politicians, regulations are transparent, broadly applicable, sensible and enduring. Politicians seeking a “bridge to nowhere” to help win an election don’t get a seat at the table.”

    She goes on to note that Forbes (once again) ranked Denmark as the best country in the world to do business. (The U.S. ranking was 18th.) and that The Heritage Foundation ranks Denmark’s economy as more free than that of the US.
    http://wapo.st/1LbQ6iA

    1. Problem with Bernie Sanders is he does not call for a more free United States. He wants a gigantic welfare state regulated by bureaucrats. He isn’t advocating what you describe.

      Also he will have to shake down the middle class to pay for it. Something he never mentions.

    2. Since when are progressives about freer enterprise?

    3. Since its clear that Bernie Sanders employs the Denmark model for democratic socialist concepts

      Denmark isn’t “democratic socialism”, it’s “social democracy” and a “welfare state”.

      Because public policy is largely set by stakeholders rather than by politicians, regulations are transparent, broadly applicable, sensible and enduring.”

      Imagine if Denmark had just one major corporation and a union representing its employees. What kinds of policies do you think those stakeholders would set? They would protect themselves from competition both from within Denmark and from outside the country. Well, that’s essentially what is happening in Denmark (with a few dozen major companies).

      She goes on to note that Forbes (once again) ranked Denmark as the best country in the world to do business.

      Maybe it’s a great country to do business if you play by the same rules of existing Danish companies. But there isn’t a single IT or high tech company among the top 20 Danish companies. Denmark seems incapable of innovating, and it doesn’t seem an attractive destination for foreign companies either. Denmark and Switzerland are roughly comparable in size, and compared to Switzerland, Denmark is a total failure in terms of attracting businesses. And Danish per capita GDP is 20% lower than that of the US or Switzerland (personal incomes are even worse).

      1. I would imagine their disposable income and purchasing power isn’t very good either. But hey let’s be like them!

  10. Check your data fellows.
    * World Bank reports GDP for Denmark 2011-2015 at $60,634 with the US at $54,629 (Source:http://bit.ly/1eRbn2E)
    * The Economist 2013 analysis has PPP for Denmark at a +19 over the US dollar.
    * World Bank puts nominal GDP for Denmark at #6 last year followed by the US at #9.
    * Gallup rates Denmark #5, followed by the US and Canada at #6 and #7 for personal income.
    Now where we do excel is at income inequality where World Bank puts the US (and a few others such as the Congo, Uganda and Venezuela) at 41% vs Denmark at 28%

    Kurt Badenhausen over at Forbes notes that “The U.S. is the only country to record a loss of economic freedom seven straight years in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. More than 130 major new federal regulations on starting a business have been added since 2009 at an annual cost of $60 billion, according to the Heritage Foundation. The U.S. ranks 81st out of 146 countries for monetary freedom, according to Heritage, with only the U.K. and Turkey faring worse among OECD nations.” And then goes on to note, “The U.S. also gets knocked for its corporate tax climate, which ranks 43rd (out of 146 we ranked countries. The statutory corporate rates in the U.S. are the highest in the world among developed countries. Denmark is one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the world. The regulatory climate is also one of the most efficient.”

    1. What is the taxes and tax rates like on the middle class? What is the after tax income like for the middle class?

      Where is Sanders advocating to slash regulations and corporate tax rates? He wants more.

    2. How much do cars and houses cost there? Food?

      Are they having to take out loans for normal household living?

      1. Any analysis of economics or policy is going to depend on what your situation is and where your interests lie. If you are in the top 20% income bracket in the US then you are better off than in Denmark. Disposable income for the top 20% in the US is over $91k per year compared to about $46k in Denmark. For those in the bottom 20% income bracket, Denmark is slightly better with an average of about $13k in disposable income compared to $11k in the US. For overall standard of living, Norway, Australia, Switzerland and the Netherlands occupy the top 4 spots followed by the US at number 5, Denmark at number 10, and then the UK at number 14, France at 20. One interesting data point is Net Median Wealth, where Denmark comes in at $370K followed by the US at $357K. Given that wealth inequality is so much lower in Denmark than in the US the fact that the median is higher in Denmark is significant. More people in Denmark are doing better than in the US. I generally count myself as one of the “haves” as opposed to the “have-nots” but I recognize that just me doing well is a poor measure of quality of life. I’d rather live in an environment where all of members of my community are doing okay; where nobody’s starving and everybody has a realistic chance to get ahead.

        1. What about the middle 60%? What are the costs of goods like in Denmark?

          Your own chart shows Denmark is below the US in standard of living. Who are all these people starving in America as i thought the complaint was America is too fat especially with poor folks?

          Where has Sanders advocated more for free enterprise…less regulations and corporate taxes? You seem to try to sell we should be like Denmark which is fine. But he is only picking certain things and ignoring the rest such as the regulatory state here and high corporate taxes.

          1. Again, using the Gini Index of income equality, Denmark has a deviation of 26%, the US has a deviation of 41%. As for the regulatory environment, the Heritage Index speaks directly to that point where Denmark ranks far better than does the US which has fallen for at least seven straight years. According to the OECD Better Life index, “Denmark performs very well in many measures of well-being relative to most other countries in the Better Life Index. Denmark ranks at the top in work-life balance. It ranks above the average in environmental quality, civic engagement, education and skills, jobs and earnings, income and wealth, and personal security.”
            According to the Nuembo Quality of Life index the US scores 184.8 while Denmark scores 206.25. Purchasing power in Denmark is rated at 141.09 comparable to the US at 141.96.

            Are you feeling the Bern?

            1. This does not answer anything i asked. These better life index and quality of life is meaningless as it is subjective. The problem is you assume what is in Denmark with 5.6 million can be applied to over 300 million people as if it just scales no problems.

              Where is Bern calling for less regulation and less corporate taxes? He isn’t.

              1. Careful. He’s come here to pick cherries and chew bubblegum and he’s all out of bubblegum.

            2. Who is this clown? Where is out resident Dane to set this dummy straight – I know he doesn’t post often but he always chimes in to tear apart know-nothing American’s who are getting hardons for Denmark.

        2. You know, I’m from that neck of the woods, and your analysis is cherry-picking and bullshit. No matter which part of the income distribution you look at, Danes are worse off than Americans.

    3. Per capita GDP (PPP) for the US is $54629 and $44862 for Denmark according to the World Bank. http://tinyurl.com/l4zdx28

      However, taxes are much higher in Denmark, and US net-adjusted disposable income is much higher than in Denmark. http://tinyurl.com/o8c2x2q

      The decrease in economic liberty in the US is disconcerting. However, even if Denmark is nominally doing well, in reality, it doesn’t seem to succeed translating its economic freedom into innovation and new investment. In different words, the US can get away with its worsening economic freedoms because companies are still coming here.

  11. So let me get my definitions straight.
    Fascism = Privately owned means of production, but compelled to act in the interest of the state
    Socialism = State owned means of production
    Communism = Socialism, but with no recognition of property rights whatsoever
    Is that about right?

    1. For me: Communism is Socialism by violent means; Fascism is nationalistic Socialism; Progressivism is Democratic Socialism because the voters get to decide who is going to screw them.

      Socialism is social engineering no matter the variations. It is not free–not even with a democratically elected government. Voting does not make one free. Venezuelans vote. Iranians vote.

      Bernie Sanders is a Socialist because he wants to reengineer society in his image rather than allow citizens to choose for themselves. He’s supposed to support a free market, yet he wants to reengineer it. He doesn’t understand that free means free.

  12. Wow, a socialism apologist post on reason. For shame.

  13. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.HomeJobs90.com

  14. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.HomeJobs90.com

  15. I thought the prog talking point used to be sweden…why is it now denmark?

  16. “Where is the radical who will make the case for individual liberation and purely the free association of producers in which the free development of each is the precondition for the free development of all?”

  17. I have trouble seeing an essential difference between Bernie Sanders and Adam Lanza.

  18. How is bureaucratic control of almost every aspect of a corporation any different than out and out nationalization?

    I and just don’t see how “where human beings can own the means of production and work together rather than having to work as semi-slaves to other people who can hire and fire.” has any bearing on free markets.

    In free markets, you can hire and fire employees as you want (and as they want).

  19. Bernie Sanders drinking game – I heard this on the radio this morning going to work. During a Bernie Sanders speech, every time Bernie proposes some new Free program, everyone drinks someone else’s beer. Makes sense to me. Bernie can at least be another entertaining idiot promoting Socialism.

  20. Wait, WHAAAT!? Are you saying that “socialism” used to mean free-market, but the liberals took that too? I mean, the progressives. I mean, the democrats.

    Are you seriously saying socialism was a free-market idea?

    I don’t buy that. The denial of private property (the seizing of the means of production) is completely antithetical to any valid notion of “free-market”.

  21. The author is nitpicking with his definition of socialism. If most of the hospital bills are paid by the state, that’s socialized medicine. Yes, yes, I know ?. it usually happens after the bills get too expensive ?. at which time they actually nationalize it all. What’s the difference? How ’bout Social Security, isn’t it socialized retirement? Sure, it is. How about alternative energy, which would not exist without government subsidies? As with northern Europe we have socialism and capitalism co-existing, however to demand the government actually own everything before you call it socialist is just silliness.

    How about the post office and public schools? Face it. Those are socialized institutions, owned and run by the state and the States respectively. Bernie wouldn’t have it any other way, just more of it!

  22. Bernie Sanders made history last night … he was the first Presidential Candidate in history (to my knowledge) that has EVER listed the litany of CIA/military overthrow of governments from Guatamala, to Iran, to Iraq, etc. that have bankrupted our nation of treasure and dignity, and spread turmoil, sadness, and misery around the world. BERNIE STOOD UP TO THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX LAST NIGHT. If he doesn’t win, we will be war as usual for the rest of or lives.

  23. Now I know why I don’t like him.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.