And where exactly are you finding discussions about “the issues about oil and gas and placenta eating and defending Nicaragua’s left leaning government”? I’m guessing not from elected Representatives or campaign officials.
Interestingly enough, The Daily News did ask Clinton about her Wall Street regulation plans:
There is a little bit more in the full transcript, but you’ll note that Clinton actually knows the exact sections of Dodd-Frank that can be used by regulators. And also references the ‘living will’ resolutions. So yes, Clinton has more specifics than Sanders and this was in an interview, not prepared remarks. You don’t have to agree with her plans, but you had to admit she has quite an impressive command of the issues involved in her regulation plans, especially compared to all the other people running for President.
She is a policy wonk, Sanders is an ideologue with only a vague grasp of specifics.
But apparently that–preparation, knowledge, and evidence that the candidate is interested enough in the topic to have researched it–is not the sort of thing that impresses Sanders’ supporters (or some of them, anyway).
What does impress them, it would appear, is “us versus them” rhetoric:
–Bernie Sanders, 13 April 2016, about Verizon Home
I give credit to Sanders for supporting the striking Verizon workers; from what I can read, Verizon’s current plans to cut pension benefits and outsource jobs will, if carried out, act to increase income inequality. It’s another in the long series of allowed-by-current-US-law actions by business interests that move the USA closer to that ideal of certain one-percenters: a permanent underclass of serfs.
(Yes, I am a leftie.)
But what Sanders is saying is nutty. Corporations don’t cut benefits and exploit their workers because they are “trying to destroy the lives of working Americans.” They don’t exploit workers because they’re evil greedy demons. They do it because, first, they can, and second, they will lose competitive advantage if they don’t do it, and third, because the rules let them do it.
Heads of corporations are not demons. They are humans with the same capacity to rationalize self-interest that we all have. The only thing that keeps them from exploiting (and rationalizing their conduct) is a set of rules–well-enforced–that makes the playing field level for both the principled business person and the ‘willing to exploit/pollute/cheat’ business person.
I don’t know if Sanders understands this. He may genuinely believe that the heads of corporations do what they do because they are evil; he may actually have that little understanding of human nature.
Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and Hillary Clinton do understand human nature. You can see it in remarks such as:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=110271
Demonizing heads of corporations seems to be working for Sanders; after all, tribalism–Us versus Them–is, perhaps, as strong a trait of humans as is our power to rationalize bad behavior.
But Sanders’ statement will strike many as extreme. It certainly would not aid him as a candidate in a general election.
Great post.
It’s not just a matter of some larger than normal percentage of CEOs being psychopaths. Corporations tend to select for psychopath-like traits because, as so many conservatives have told us time and time again: a corporation’s ONLY responsibility is to make money for its shareholders. This is the very definition of greedy and amoral. Given this, of course a corporation would tend to select for people with the sort of traits psychopaths possess, leading to a higher percentage of actual psychopaths in leadership positions and ALSO a higher percentage of normal people who can make decisions in a psychopath sort of way.
Now the part I find absolutely fascinating is this: the higher you go in terms of power and wealth, apparently, the less humane you get. For example, take ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is the lobbying arm of the state and national chambers of commerce.They did a survey of their current and prospective state level members to discover their opinions on paid sick leave, raising the minimum wage and paternity leave. The ALEC state corporate leaders favored these policies, by about 80 percent to 8 percent. But the national leadership opposed them, so they sent their minions around to give webinairs on how to subtly persuade their OWN MEMBERSHIP to oppose the policies they in fact favored.
So, not all corporate leaders are demons. But the demons at the top are the ones running the show, because ALEC has been fighting all those policies their membership supports, tooth and nail.
My point was not that heads of corporations are altruists–as you point out, many (though not all) are probably diagnosable with psychopathy or something very close to it, just by the nature of what is required of heads of corporations.
My point was that calling them names–even if the names are accurate (‘greedy’ etc.)–will accomplish exactly nothing.
Psychopaths can’t be shamed into behaving differently, and non-psychopaths might feel unhappy about being criticized, but still won’t behave differently. And the reason they won’t behave differently in response to being called insulting names is that the system is set up to reward them for behaving as they do, and name-calling does nothing to change that system.
Sander is being either self-indulgent or cynical when he addresses problems with the current system as if “scoldings” are the way to effect change. He did it again today, by the way, in Italy when praising the Pope:
Watch Bernie Sanders Says It Was ‘Real Honor’ to Meet Pope Francis - Bloomberg
Yes, if only we tell heads of corporations loudly enough and often enough that they Need To Be Moral, then everything will be wonderful!
Humans–particularly young ones–do tend to enjoy a nice wallow in self-righteous indignation; Sanders knows that he will please his supporters with these chastisements of Bad Greedy Immoral company-heads. But he achieves nothing of value with these fetishistic bouts of outrage. They encourage and reward ignorance–that’s all.
Gotta love former (old, yelling) Rep. John Dingell’s tweet during the last debate: “Old guy who yells a lot sick of listening to old guy who yells a lot”.
Heh. Yes, Sanders does have that “angry man” image. Even leaving the “old” part out (though if BS were to make it to the general, the GOP would be hitting ‘old’ pretty hard.)
… Has an “angry” candidate ever done well in a US Presidential election, at least in the television-era? I’m trying to think of one, and can’t. Nixon was sort of sullen, but that’s not exactly the same as being an angry shouter.
Bernie’s pointing out the amorality of corporations is clearly meant for voters. If he were to become President, he’ll do more than name call. But he has to have the voters on his side to get legislation not favored by corporations passed, if he can do it at all.
I suspect an angry candidate will very well with angry voters. That’s the reason both Trump and Sanders are doing well, much better than anyone would have dared to predict a year ago. Voters are very, very, very angry. But you guys don’t see that. Perhaps later you will.
But that seems to take for granted the proposition that only the ginning up of hatred (of Bad People such as corporate heads) can get voters to agree that legislation is needed.
Are you saying that approaches such as Elizabeth Warren’s have no power to convince voters that legislation is needed?
For example, in the speech excerpt I quoted a few posts up, she said:
Are you claiming that this type of identification of the realities has no effect on the views of voters? Only the encouragement of contempt (for classes of people such as business leaders) can affect voters?
If so, I think it’s wrongheaded. Many people dislike the “us versus them” worldview and consider it to be counterproductive.
link to the Warren speech: http://www.businessinsider.com/eliza...speech-2013-11
I’m not sure who doesn’t see it, but anger tends to override common sense and practicality in many, and I’ll wager a lot of them are hardcore Bernie and Trump supporters. It also isn’t particularly sustainable for most.
There are millions of corporations in the United States. Most are run by very average, very normal people.
Re angry voters?
Meh.
A minority of each party have voted for Trump and Sanders respectively. More have voted for Clinton than either. (Roughly 9.4 million Clinton, 8.2 million Trump, and 7 million Sanders.) Not everyone who is voting for Sanders is angry; far from it. Some found him more aspirational. (Don’t ask me why! :)) And in both cases many are voting less out of angry than … dissatisfaction … and the appeal of trading what they have for a chance to win the unknown behind door number 3.
Of course a hypothetical Sanders vs Trump would be yelling angry old white man vs yelling angry old white man. And one would win!
Personally I think the anger of the electorate is overhyped. Plus anger is hard work to sustain. It is the stuff of an explosion not of a distance event like the getting to November is.
Thanks for pointing out what may be the only advantage of US campaigns taking a hundred times longer than any *civilized *country’s. 
I agree, DSeid. And someone (538 maybe?) did a data-driven exploration of how this “angry electorate” thing is way overhyped.
And you’ll continue to hear that hype because the Sanders and Trump campaigns will do their utmost to make sure every rube possible believes it.