I think we’ve seen that people do not necessarily connect things they view favorably with things they view favorably. “Obamacare” and the ACA poll badly; the individual provisions of the ACA poll very well.
But I don’t think the core tenets of socialism DO poll well with the US (i.e. the means of production, exchange and distribution should be managed directly by the government). Rather, some socialist type programs taken separately poll well, which is unsurprising, since we and all other modern western countries us socialist programs to soften capitalist economic systems.
75% of the electorate views Congress unfavorably. Are candidates who self-label as members of Congress unelectable?
True. But the issue here is not whether socialist programs poll well generally. It’s whether the stuff Sanders proposes as part of his campaign will.
Which isn’t what Sanders is advocating.
I think that it’s the same thing (or similar) however…some of Sanders proposed programs or policies or stances will probably resonate with a lot of folks, but I think as he’s drawn out more into talking more broadly he won’t appeal to enough people outside of his core to win or even seriously challenge the major Democratic players in the primary, let alone be a serious challenge in a general election. But, hell, my powers of prediction truly suck, so who knows? I wouldn’t be apoplectic or anything if he DID manage to win, though he wouldn’t be my choice (I’d most likely go back to voting libertarian if he got the Democratic nomination).
Sure he is…he’s just not saying it directly like that. If he IS in fact a socialist then that’s his core philosophy, and looking at his programs with the actual core tenets in mind of Socialism you can see that’s what he is getting at. No shame there…it’s Socialist philosophy after all. I’m unsure why folks would want to white wash this stuff, to be honest. 
Sanders has never really advocated aggressive socialist policies as a legislator. It’s hard to see why he would start now as a putative POTUS. He understands that he has to work within the system.
His policies are indistinguishable from left-wing social democracy on the Scandinavian model. Regardless of Sanders’s personal philosophy, he isn’t suggesting anything that is uniquely socialist.
Qin…left wing social democracy on the Scandinavian model ARE using the means of production, exchange and distribution for the public good! They are a socialist country using a quasi-capitalist economic system that is controlled by their socialist policies and programs. And you are right…that’s exactly what Sanders wants. Again, this is what it means to be a socialist, and he proudly proclaims he is one, so there is no shame here.
I linked to this earlier, but this is a pretty good video (and it’s short) on Youtube about what I’m saying. Here is another in the how powerful series, this time on the Nordic countries if you want to take a look as well (answer…pretty damned powerful).
Now that I reread the definition-“using the means of production, exchange, and distribution for the public good”-its something that can be used for a wide variety of ideologies. The social liberalism of Obama and the mainstream Democratic which accepts a minimal welfare state can claim that they are doing. For that matter even libertarians can claim that since the most efficient way of using the means of production, exchange, and distribution is the government taking off a “hands-off” policy, they are serving the public good by doing so. Scandinavia is by any meaningful sense fundamentally capitalist that implements social democratic policies.
It’s not impossible, but it IS kinda counter-intuitive. Don’t most Jewish people in America self-identify as liberal?
ISTM that anti-semites would tend to gravitate toward right-wing organizations.
No, odd as it is for me to say this, Terr is right. We should be discussing Sanders’ actual ideology… but not in this thread. The topic of this thread is why Sanders is unelectable, and that’s all about public perception of him, not about his actual views.
By that logic, when the Israeli government was founded by and run by “socialists”, which they were until the 70s, they couldn’t possibly have been racist.
It’s very possible for liberals to be racist or anti-Semitic.
One thing that far too many people make the mistake of doing is thinking of being racist or an anti-Semite as this huge, horrible thing without any sort of nuance.
To be honest, being racist or anti-Semitic doesn’t even make you stupid or even a bad person. There are lots of smart, good people in the Middle East for whom the term “Yehudi” is the ugliest word imaginable just as there are plenty of smart, good Israelis who won’t even try to pretend they don’t despise Arabs.
I really think it would be better to think of being a racist as levels rather than as one label.
Let’s say a level 10 racist would be Adolph Hitler while a level 1 racist would be Barack Obama’s grandmother who was a wonderful woman, but still had an irrational fear of black people.
Oh for pity’s sake. The idea that any significant number of people (particularly those on the left) will not vote for Bernie Sanders merely because he’s Jewish or because he’s been to Israel is ludicrous. I think the main thing voters on the left want to see WRT Israel is that candidates (regardless of whether they are Jewish) not adopt the Likud worldview. I think Bernie’s snub of Netanyahu adequately addresses that concern.
I’ll confess to finding it weird how many people say things like “I’m against the Likud view” or “I’m not against Israel, I’m against Netanyahu”.
That’s an attitude that makes little sense to much of the Middle East.
How exactly is the Labor party significantly different and more likely to bring about an end to the conflict and allow the Palestinians to return to their ancestral homes in Haifa, Jaffa and elsewhere?
Can you name me some Jewish political parties in Israel that have declared they recognize that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial oppression” and that they’ll renounce it?
Beyond that it wasn’t Likud that began the occupation. It was Labor and they’ve made no suggestions that any but a tiny minority of Palestinians would find acceptable.
What exactly do you think is “the Likud view” that you find unacceptable and what is “the Labor view” that you find acceptable.
If not Labor, which Israel political party has a view you would find acceptable?
Start your own anti-Semite witch hunt thread if you like, Ibn Warraq. This thread is about Bernie Sanders, and why people would or would not vote for him. Do you find his Jewishness a barrier? I don’t.
Huh?
No, I don’t. For that matter I wasn’t the one who suggested his being Jewish would be a problem. That was Terr. I made comments about Rehm, who is possibly an anti-Semite but more likely senile and mocked the idea that left-wingers can’t be bigots.
Anyway, you claimed that most people on “the Left” would be happy if Sanders demonstrated he doesn’t share “the Likud worldview”.
Ok, since you clearly object to “the Likud worldview” please tell me what parts of “the Likud worldview” do you object to and tell me if not Likud, what Israeli political party do you support?
For example do you object to Likud being Zionist?
Supporting the racist immigration policy known as “the right of return”?
Requiring Arab citizens of Israel to carry ID cards saying “Nationality:Arab”?
Supporting laws reserving most of the land within Israel to be used soley by Jews even though Arabs are 20% of the citizenry and 40% of the population?
Refusing to recognize marriages between Jewish girls and Muslim boys?
If not, which Israeli political party opposes these.
Please be specific and with all due respect if you don’t like people asking you to clarify your posts then you shouldn’t make them and since you claim you feel that Sanders should “reject the Likud worldview” you should be able to tell us how it’s different from other Israeli views you’d find more acceptable.
My chief impression of the Likud worldview is from my perspective here in the US. I have little stake in Israeli politics, except that I would like to see peace there.
My impression of the Likud Party from my perspective in the US is that in dealing with the Palestinians, they are the party of intransigence, the party of expanding settlements, and the party of colonization.
More pertinent to me as an American, my impression of the Likud Party is that they seem ever eager to prod the US toward conflict with Iran (or with whomever happens to be their perceived enemy of the moment in the Middle East). I have little tolerance for bellicose politicians, and even less so when their bellicosity is of the “Let’s you and him fight!” variety. The Likud Party seems to have aligned itself with the bellicose wing of the Republican Party here in the US, and so when I think of Likud, one of my thoughts is “neverending war.” No thank you.
If my impression of the Likud Party is wrong, then they have a helluva lot of work to do on their PR, because I think a lot of folks have the same impression.
So, again, from my perspective as an American, as long as Bernie does not buy into that belligerent strain of Israeli politics, that is the end of my concern.
That is also the end of my discussion of Israeli politics. Start your own thread if you like. We are here to discuss why Bernie Sanders is or is not “electable.” Do you have any thoughts on that topic?
You mean, like, Eric Cantor? Sheldon Adelson? Joe Lieberman?
Yeah, maybe not so much.