The Chicago Tribune (1/24/16) condemns voters’ “dalliance” with Trump, Cruz and Sanders–“candidates who could be politically disastrous.”
The Chicago Tribune (1/24/16) is not happy with the choices voters are thinking of making this year:
Democrats and Republicans usually find comparatively safe, steady options. But this year, risky and disruptive options are in vogue. The way the campaign is going, it’s easy to imagine that in 2016, voters in the sensible center will find themselves abandoned by the major parties.
The “candidates who could be politically disastrous” by turning off the “broad, sensible center” are, in the Tribune‘s view, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the frontrunners in the Republican race, and, on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders—candidates who are “uncomfortably close to the cliff,” putting parties at risk of “being smashed on the rocks below.”
The Tribune editorial offers reasons its disfavored candidates are beyond the pale:
Trump has done his best to alienate Latinos, blacks, Muslims, women and anyone with an aversion to Sarah Palin. Cruz is widely despised by fellow Republican senators, and his over-the-top rhetoric (such as vowing to carpet-bomb Islamic State) is music only to the GOP’s right wing. Sanders brandishes a label that, a Gallup poll found, would automatically make him unacceptable to nearly half the public.
So disqualifying qualities in a candidate include racism/Islamophobia/misogyny, a commitment to mass-slaughtering civilians—and socialism. One of these things is not like the others.
The idea that you can’t be president if you believe in socialism—which Sanders defines as “a government that works for the many, not the few”—rests heavily on that Gallup poll, which found that 50 percent of respondents said they would not vote for “a socialist.”
It also found that 38 percent said they would not vote for a Muslim—though clearly the Tribune would not be bringing that up as the sole reason a Muslim politician should not be running for president. Nor does it mention that 40 percent said they wouldn’t vote for an atheist, even though Sanders is widely (though apparently wrongly) believed to be an atheist. How come? Because corporate media in general treat religious prejudice as a shameful thing, whereas capitalist institutions like giant media conglomerates tend to see an aversion to socialism as normal and healthy.
Averages from Real Clear Politics (1/25/16)
The thing is, voters would not be asked to vote for “a socialist”—they’d be asked to vote for Bernie Sanders. And while pollsters don’t include Sanders in general election matchups as often as they do Hillary Clinton, they have asked how the Vermont senator would do against various Republicans—and he generally does pretty well. In particular, against the candidate the Tribune says is “best positioned” to “capture the broad, sensible center”—Jeb Bush—Sanders leads in polls by an average of 3.0 percentage points, based on polling analysis by the website Real Clear Politics.
When pollsters match Sanders against the four top-polling Republican hopefuls, on average he does better than Clinton does against each of them—even though she, like Bush, is supposed to be “best positioned” to “capture the broad, sensible center,” according to the Tribune.
Actually, the elements of Sanders’ platform that elite media are most likely to associate with “socialism”—things like universal, publicly funded healthcare and eliminating tuition at public colleges—are quite popular with the public, and go a long way to explain his favorable poll numbers. But they are also the sort of proposals that make Sanders unacceptable to the nation’s wealthy elite—and to establishment media outlets.
In addition to the Gallup poll, the other piece of evidence for Sanders’ disastrousness is the testimony of a conservative Democrat:
What if self-declared democratic socialist Sanders is the Democratic winner? “It would be a meltdown all the way down the ballot,” Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, assured the New York Times.
Missouri is a state with interesting politics. As recently as 2000, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of its legislature. Today, Republicans make up 72 percent of Missouri’s house, and 75 percent of its senate.
Is that because the Missouri Democrats nominated too many socialists? Or is it because of candidates like Jay Nixon?
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter: @JNaureckas.
Letters to the Chicago Tribune can be sent to ctc-tribletter@chicagotribune.com (or via Twitter @ChicagoTribune). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Socialism is just a word, but one that seems to carry a lot of emotional charge. It even appears to terrify some people! But it’s just semantics. We’ve had socialism in the US for more than 100 years. Ever heard of public education? That’s where I get to pay for your child’s education even if I don’t have children myself. How about public roads and highways? That’s where I get to pay for your roads even if I don’t drive a car. (And no, the gas tax does not completely pay for the roads.) I’m sure I can think of more examples.
My point is this: Maybe we should try focusing on the issues instead of labeling a candidate with word that is highly charged but clearly misleading.
It wasn’t socialism that blew-up the nation’s economy in 2007. It wasn’t socialism that ended Glass-Steagull. It wasn’t socialism that launched an invasion of Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and directly lead to the creation of ISIS. Crony-Capitalism and the hyper-wealthy, the powerful well-connected elites, are destroying this country. Hilary Clinton is associated with the above;Bernie Sanders isn’t.
Ted Cruz is far from a fringe candidate. He’s a safe choice for the billionaire class including Wall Street Financiers.
He’s safe because he’s feeding out of the same trough as Jeb, Hilary and the rest. A few million dollars from Goldman Sachs where his wife works does not make one a rebel candidate know many how many times he asks you to look the other way.
@GregK: As you point out, socialism is poorly defined. We live in societies that protect us from others. Are these societies socialistic? Does socialism mean government control of private industry? How then, does it differ from communism? No self-described socialist running for President has ever proposed turning all private industry over to the government.
There is no clear, commonly used definition for the word socialism.
This is the same Chicago Tribune that enthusiastically endorsed Rahm Emanuel for Mayor of Chicago, citing his “tactical shrewdness, ethical conduct and inexhaustible energy.” Four years later, as reported by Charles Thomas of Chicago’s channel 7, it called for his reelection, only four days after the newspaper reported that dozens of contributors to Emanuel’s political war chest were associated with firms and companies that did business directly or indirectly with City Hall. “‘It’s an endorsement of corruption,’ said Willie Wilson, candidate for mayor. Wilson called it ‘mind boggling’ that the newspaper – after raising questions about Emanuel’s fundraising – could support the mayor’s re-election.”
In 2000, the paper wisely endorsed George W. Bush, saying that he would be ”far less patient with schools that persistently fail” and would ”recognize that innovation is nurtured and achieved from the local level up, not dictated from Washington.” So pleased with his performance during the first term, the Tribune enthusiastically endorsed him for reelection in 2004.
Any time I find myself uncertain on issues in an upcoming election, I always turn to the editorial pages of the Tribune. Then I vote appropriately.
Reminds of Nietzsche Steve, who wrote a Christian has value almost as a criterion of values insofar as whatever a Christian says is true is of necessity false, and whatever false, true.
Sanders putting parties at risk of “being smashed on the rocks below.”
Good. Sick of Republicans and Democrats anyway. They’re the same party; the Corporate Party of America, the 1%, the elite. Good riddance. We need new blood. It’s time Americans recognize the independent candidates.
And nothing but praise from the GOP with regard to the largest and most thoroughgoing socialist organization in the country: the military. Consider the collectivist benefits: government subsidized food, clothing, and housing. A free, government-run healthcare system. Tax subsidized stores (PXs and BXs) available to both active and retired employees. A tax-subsidized pension system that anyone with 20 years of service can take advantage of, regardless of age. Subsidized higher education and government-mandated employment preferences. Special housing loans and tax allowances, even for retirees. Doesn’t get much more socialist than that.
The “broad, sensible center” is nothing but RWNJs, now that the corporate media has moved us all so far to one side.
Fortunately, the 50% who would not vote for a socialist will probably split their vote among all seven of the Klown Kar Kandidates.
The ghost of Col. McCormick appears to be alive and well at the Trib.
“Still wrong after all these years” your Chicago Tribune