At the conclusion of yesterday’s post in reaction to the violent protests in Chicago that shut down a planned Donald Trump rally, I wrote, as my final observation…
8. Ethics test: Let’s see if Bernie Sanders, without prompting, has the integrity to condemn the conduct of his fervent fans.
Bernie Sanders has escaped much scrutiny of his character thus far, in a crowd of frighteningly flawed competitors. He’s not as corrupt or dishonest as Clinton, nor as ruthless as Cruz, nor as weak as Rubio, nor lacking any redeeming qualities of character at all, like Donald Trump. Here, however, Berrnie betrays the moral rot of the leftist revolutionary, willing to excuse violence to overturn the established order for “the greater good.” We saw this during the last Democratic debate, in which he refused to condemn the Castro regime in Cuba nor repudiate his past praise of Fidel’s accomplishments. Hillary Clinton, given an under-hand soft-ball pitch to hit out of the park, swung from then heels and launched it into the stands:
“You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear, you imprison people, even kill people, for expressing their opinions … that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.”
Bingo. But Bernie Sanders, like the Communist totalitarians he admires for their health care and distribution of wealth, is willing to put up with some violence to achieve his revolution, and he proved it here. Abetted in some respects by the biased news media that were thrilled to blame an example of violence squelching political speech on the victim rather than the true offenders—because they don’t like the victim, you see, and if journalists and pundits don’t like someone, they discard the basic standards of decency and fairness that they will rush to demand for their political favorites—Sanders released a telling defense of the actions of his supporters, even though his supporters had admitted their deliberate mounting of a near riot to silence Trump:
In a word, outrageous.
In two: signature significance.
- First paragraph: A lie.
But what made Chicago different were its scale and the organization behind the effort. Hundreds of young people, mostly minorities, poured in from across the city, taking over whole sections of the arena and bracing for trouble.
And as the repeated chants of “Ber-nie” demonstrated, it was largely organized by supporters of Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has struggled to win over black voters but whose revolutionary streak has excited radicals of all racial demographics.
“Remember the #TrumpRally wasn’t just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work,” tweeted People for Bernie, a large unofficial pro-Sanders organization founded by veterans of the Occupy movement and other leftist activists.
Do you think Bernie doesn’t know this? If he doesn’t, which I doubt, then he has no business asserting that Donald Trump is lying when it is he who is unaware of the facts.
- Second paragraph: The mark of a free speech enemy and anti-democratic hypocrite.
Speech you disagree with doesn’t “cause” anyone to disrupt it. Neither Bernie Sanders nor anyone else has a right to disrupt a rally or a speech because of a citizen’s actions, opinions or rhetoric, past, present or future. Hate speech is speech someone else hates. Bernie thinks speech he doesn’t like justifies silencing the speaker. Of course, he admires Fidel Castro and honeymooned in the Soviet Union. That’s Bernie.
- Third paragraph: Blaming the victim, and Rationalization #2 A. Sicilian Ethics and #36. Victim Blindness, or “They/He/She/ You should have seen it coming.”
This is most ironic, because it is how Donald Trump thinks, and these are two of his favorite unethical rationalizations. Bernie really thinks Trump deserved to have his event wrecked and his supporters didn’t have a right to listen to their candidate because “The victim of the unethical conduct no longer deserves ethical treatment because of the victim’s own misconduct.” (Rationalization 2A.) and because they “should have known that their actions would inspire the conduct that caused them harm, and thus they should have either avoided doing what sparked the unethical response, or by not doing so waived their right to object to it.” (Rationalization #36). This is how vigilantes think; also ideological autocrats, fascists and totalitarians.
- Fourth paragraph: Hypocrisy
People have a right to attend a rally without fear of physical harm, unless it is a Trump rally, in which case Bernie supporters have the right to spark a riot to shut it down.