The 'Conservative Case' for Bernie Sanders Has Been Made

You knew it was coming, you just didn’t expect it this soon. But no one ever accused the most radical elements of the Never Trump movement of being anything less than nuts when it comes to Donald Trump.

Enter The Bulwark, Bill Kristol’s left-wing funded vanity project which has made a mockery out of “principled” conservatism. Johnathan V. Last, the least surprising person to have penned an essay like this, decided it was time to make the conservative case for Bernie Sanders, because of course he did.

Here are a few excerpts.

Here’s the thing: You can say “socialism is horrible!” And you would be correct. (Mostly.) But the choice isn’t merely:

(A) America elects Sanders and becomes Venezuela, or
(B) America elects Trump and stays great.

Wait, wait, wait. A website that proposes to conserve conservative by opposing the orange man at all costs is now mocking the notion that socialism is indeed horrible? It’s only “mostly” horrible? Man, so many principles.

I mean, for starters, Bernie is not going to eliminate private health insurance any more than Trump has built a wall from coast to coast that Mexico paid for. When you hear about Bernie’s “socialism,” take it seriously, not literally.

But also, because the real choice is:

(A) America elects a socialist who tries to enact legislative polices that may or may not pass, or

(B) America elects a guy who is systematically dismantling the rule of law

This is where he gets into the real nonsense. One, the notion that an authoritian loving communist like Bernie is somehow a safe bet to observe the “rule of law” is laughable. Two, the idea that Donald Trump not getting removed from office for obviously non-impeachable things undermines the “rule of law” is equally laughable. So we are barely in and we’ve already got a false dichotomy.

But it gets dumber.

Look: You can fix bad policy. If the government passes legislation that you think is too liberal or too conservative, you can change that the next time your side takes power. Policy can be course corrected.

But you can’t “fix” the rule of law. Once it’s broken, it’s gone. It’s gangsterism all the way to the horizon.

Actually, even granting the ridiculous premise (i.e. that Trump has “broken” the rule of law), the above is exactly backwards. It’s fairly easy to restore order in a legal system which is bolstered by our Constitutional backbone. When the FBI went completely corrupt in the mid-20th century (not be confused with them going mostly corrupt the rest of the time), our entire system of government didn’t collapse as a result.

But when it comes to bad legislation, it’s essentially impossible reverse. We’ve seen that with Obamacare and every other debt inducing, sustainability sucking entitlement that’s been hoisted upon the country since the New Deal. In other words, what in the heck is Last talking about? You can fix bad policy? History says you can’t. Meanwhile, history clearly shows that breeches of the “rule of law” are much more likely to be repaired.

Of course Last should not be granted his premise in the first place about the rule of law, as it has not been, nor will it be irreparably damaged if Trump remains President. Further, this idea that Bernie will just be harmless and powerless to enact his schemes if elected is wish casting at its finest. The Democrat party has already seen a dramatic shift to the left. What does Last think will happen when they have a President with the bully pulpit in hand? Does anyone really think Nancy Pelosi is going to scuttle Medicare for All once it’s on the table? Or student loan forgiveness funded by taxpayers? How about the Green New Deal? Of course she won’t scuttle those things, and remember, all they’d need is 50 vote via reconciliation to get at least some of it through.

Last ends with this complete self-awareness fail.

If Bernie is the nominee, that’s what the real choice will be and anyone who wants to pretend otherwise is just trying to build an alibi for themselves to explain why, when the chips were down, they went with their party preference. Again.

Yes, it’s Republicans voting against a communist who would be falling into just “party preference” here, not the supposed conservatives throwing in with said communist in order to vote Democrat at all costs. Makes sense.

A Trump second term is exactly what people like Last deserve.

 

Bonchie
Front-page contributor for RedState. Visit my archives for more of my latest articles and help out by following me on Twitter @bonchieredstate.
Read more by Bonchie