Ignore the misleading, emotionally charged, and fairly
ridiculous headline from the The Daily Beast. As its reporter notes, on Monday
afternoon, MSNBC's Chris Matthews interviewed former Ohio state senator and
prominent Bernard Sanders surrogate Nina Turner. Matthews (skilled at getting people to say stupid things)
asked Turner "do you think Mike Bloomberg is an oligarch?" and Turner replied
Aside from whether "ironic" is the operative term, Johnson did not defend the wealthy over working people. However, she is not stupid and did not take Johnson's bait. She ignored his question, inasmuch that under her ill-informed definition of "oligarch," her candidate is one, also.
Share |
He is. He skipped Iowa. Iowans should be insulted. Buying
his way into this race, period. The DNC changed the rules. They didn’t change
it for Senator Harris. They didn’t change it for Senator Booker. They didn’t
change it for Secretary Castro.
Yes, Ms. Turner. Harris, Booker, Castro- we get the
implication. The Democratic National
Committee's original criteria for admission to the debates was misguided, it
now is trying to correct it, and it may have made matters worse. But that's a
topic (involving state parties, money, and Barack Obama) for another time.
Merriam-Webster defines "oligarch" as a member or
supporter of oligarchy, which it in turn defines as 1) government by the few;
or 2) a government in which a small group exercises control, especially for
corrupt and selfish purposes.
Until and unless President Trump is re-elected, this will
not be, and has not been, an oligarchy. (Even then, it will be less an
oligarchy than rule by one person or by one family.) Not even democratic
socialist Sanders has claimed that it is.
Nevertheless, Turner stood her ground, though it be sinking
beneath her. After a commercial break,
she maintained
it was “ironic” that “somebody would defend the wealthiest
people in this country over the working people in this country.”
“That is the same message Bernie Sanders has to the everyday
people of this nation, that I welcome the hatred of the elites because I am
standing up for you,” she added. “So cry me a river for the wealthiest.”
MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson
meanwhile, contended that his issue was what the word
“oligarch” implied while also claiming that Turner herself worked for someone
who’s part of the one percent, wondering if she would call Sanders an oligarch.
Aside from whether "ironic" is the operative term, Johnson did not defend the wealthy over working people. However, she is not stupid and did not take Johnson's bait. She ignored his question, inasmuch that under her ill-informed definition of "oligarch," her candidate is one, also.
Conservative, liberal, or progressive; Republican or Democrat; black or ni____"; very wealthy or oligarch (even hispanic or Latino): words matter. The USA is not an oligarchy but instead a nation of one President and many cabinet officials, 535 national legislators, and tens of thousands of state and elected officials.
If Turner wants irony, here it is: that individuals such as
she who exaggerate the importance of influential people- of whom there are
hundreds spread throughout the public and private sectors- may hasten the emergence of authoritarian rule. Johnson added
Mike Bloomberg is just a rich guy. Just because you’re rich
doesn’t mean that you’re an oligarch that abuses power. The power that Mike
Bloomberg got access to was given to him by the voters of New York... It ain’t
the kind of language you should be using. I think it’s dismissive, unfair and
it's the kind of thing that blows up in your face if you become the nominee and
you have to work with Mike Bloomberg three or four months from now. That’s the
issue Sanders people never seem to want to remember.
If Bernard Sanders does become the nominee and his people
fail to learn this lesson, Donald Trump will be re-elected and American
government will be restructured in a manner far more dangerous than Ms. Turner
and some other Sanderistas now understand.
Share |
No comments:
Post a Comment