24 Vile Distortions by the Anti-Bernie Democratic Movement

Recently, I read an article titled “On Becoming Anti-Bernie,” by Robin Alperstein. After reading it, I felt compelled to write a response to this article, which encapsulated everything negative about the anti-Bernie movement. For perspective, I was initially a reluctant Sanders supporter, and I do think there were some legitimate criticisms hidden in the rhetoric of the article.

However, the article devolved into a truly hateful and dishonest piece. Ironically, the article focused on Sanders’ supposed intellectual dishonesty. Using the article as a template, I will go through the intellectual dishonesty propagated by the anti-Bernie movement. While the worst distortions lie at the end of the article, I’ll go through its 24 wild distortions in chronological order.

Distortion #1: Sanders cannot pay for his proposals. The standard to which Sanders is held in this regard is unprecedented. These plans are implemented successfully in numerous countries, showing that they definitely can be done. As Alperstein dismisses, there are extremely positive economic analyses of his plans, like that of Gerald Friedman. Even if there is a $1-2 trillion shortfall, that is not very significant considering the scope of his plans. Meanwhile, Clinton says she’ll pay for all her plans by "closing tax loopholes." If there’s a more evasive plan, I don’t know of it. When other candidates have plans that aren’t paid for at all, it’s extremely disenguous to label a plan that’s 90% paid for as a fairy tale.

Distortion #2: Sanders is an unaccomplished legislator. As Alperstein said, Sanders didn’t sponsor and pass a lot of meaningful legislation. What Alperstein didn’t say was that neither did Clinton or nearly any member of Congress. That’s how Congress works. And if you knew anything about the institution, you’d know that every single member of Congress introduces symbolic legislation that they know will not pass. Unlike Clinton, though, Sanders became one of the most effective members of Congress, using roll call amendments. In fact, he passed more roll call amendments than anyone else.

Distortion #3: Sanders pretends his plans will pass. In fact, Sanders has said numerous times that he expects to get "half a loaf," i.e. only some of his demands. And you must be delusional if you think that Clinton’s plans will pass. It’s absolutely dishonest to attack someone because they present what they believe is right, instead of a compromised position.

Distortion #4: Sanders rejects compromise. This is an absolute lie; Sanders has used compromise to get a lot done as a mayor and member of Congress.

Distortion #5: Sanders lied about the crime bill. It is undeniable that Sanders publicly opposed the tough-on-crime provisions in the crime bill. It is equally undeniable that Clinton very publicly backed the tough-on-crime provisions in the crime bill. Sanders has consistently defended his vote as a compromise which included the Violence Against Women Act (yes, he does compromise), while Clinton has until recently been very supportive of the entire bill. That’s why it matters that she used the racist term “superpredators.”

Distortion #6: Sanders cannot describe how Clinton was affected by big money interests. Sanders has in fact mentioned numerous issues where he thinks Clinton was affected by corporate interests, including her positions on the minimum wage and big banks. He is obviously being polite, since there are a litany of other issues commentators have pointed out, including the bankruptcy bill and trade deals. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that all these corporate donations have no effect on a politician.

Distortion #7: Sanders is a hypocrite on money in politics. If you’re new to this discussion, the focus of Sanders attacks have been on Super PACs, not PACs in general. Super PACs can accept unlimited donations, which is something Sanders is trying to end. It is intellectual dishonest to attack him for accepting a couple thousand dollars from standard Political Action Committees.

Distortion #8: Sanders has engaged in McCarthyite attacks. Sanders has never called Clinton corrupt, a shill, or bought and sold. Those are all in your imagination. It is intellectually dishonest to command a politician to concede that another candidate is better than he is on certain issues. Obviously, he thinks he’s the better candidate on women’s issues and the other issues listed. Obviously, he thinks that those who endorsed his opponent aren’t doing so because she is the better candidate. His explanation that they are part of the out-of-touch establishment is convincing, considering that, many times, the majority of their members disagree with the leadership.

Distortion #9: Just a host of distortions in a row that can easily be researched and disproven.

• “He seemed unaware... during the Daily News interview [that Dodd-Frank can break up the banks.]" He in fact said that it can in the very interview.
• "[Clinton] had nothing to do with repealing Glass-Steagall." She supports it to this day.
• "His own vote in favor of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act...[led] to the financial collapse.” Sanders opposed the deregulatory measures that were snuck into the bill by the Clinton camp.
• "The issue [of fracking] is complicated." It’s complicated because the fossil fuel industry says it’s complicated.
• "Clinton’s receipt of speaker fees between 2013 and 2015 [cannot be connected to earlier decisions]." Sanders hasn’t said that they can be. What he had said is that this is evidence of a favorable position towards Wall Street.

Distortion #10: Sanders doesn't support other Democrats and doesn't distinguish between Clinton and Republicans. Sanders has differentiated between Clinton and the Republicans many times. He doesn't raise a lot of money for other Democrats because he rejects the money-based model of winning elections. He raises awareness for issues which, ideally, Democratic candidates support. He also needs his money much more than Clinton does. You may not like it, but there's nothing hypocritical about his position.

Distortion #11: Sanders is lying about his tax returns. No, Sanders' income and assets are not "higher than they let on." He released his tax returns, and he is one of the least wealthy members of the US Senate.

Distortion #12: "Sanders didn’t have a job until he was 40 years old." A pure, unadulterated lie. He had many private jobs, and he also worked effectively in numerous social justice movements.

Distortion #13: "Sanders is out there attacking Obama and Hillary for the Affordable Health Care Act." He has praised Obamacare many times.

Distortion #14: Sanders opposes modest gun regulations. Sanders has voted for many regulations on guns. He rests his support for gun manufacturer immunity not on Vermont's hunters, but on the fact that they sold a legal product. Every single independent analysis says that he has a mixed record on guns, much like Clinton does.

Distortion #15: Sanders is misleading on his political affiliation. He has been very open with the fact that he rejects political labels, rejects the undemocratic primary process, but must run as a Democrat to be viable or effective.

Distortion #16: Sanders is a sexist. This is the lie I found most vile and sickening. Sanders has devoted a huge portion of his career toward promoting women’s issues. His voting record is more than impeccable, even better than Clinton’s. Yet you deigned to lay such a dirty attack on him. Why? Well, first of all, he once used the word "bitch" in his 75 years, not addressed at any specific person or group. Somehow, you decided he’s blaming women for men’s cancer. This is not only a lie, it’s a defamation of character. Next, the author hints at Sanders’ satire piece from the 80s that, ironically, denounced gender roles. That’s the height of intellectual dishonesty. Next, she says, he used sexist language against Clinton. How so? Well, he called her "unqualified," and his campaign mentioned her ambition to become president. What a revolting distortion. "Unqualified" is a standard word used against every political opponent, and Sanders didn’t even call her ambitious. Apparently legitimate criticisms cannot be expressed because they’ve sometimes been used against women without justification. The Clinton campaign is doing a massive disservice to feminism by ascribing such unhinged assertions to the movement.

Distortion #17: The media favors Sanders. I don’t think this needs an elaboration. But I’ve seen far more satirical depictions of Sanders' appearance and mannerisms than Clinton’s.

Distortion #18: The "BernieBros." There is zero evidence to support the notion that Sanders supporters are sexist, and in fact polling shows that they are just as supportive of women’s issues as Clinton supporters. The BernieBros is another disgusting, vile lie. Yet Sanders still felt the need to apologize for them and denounce them. Do some supporters think gender is irrelevant when voting? Maybe. Maybe they think electing a president is about fixing a broken country, not status symbols. You can disagree with this position, maybe rightly so, but it’s truly nasty to call it sexist.

Distortion #19: Sanders showed that he’s unprepared in the Daily News interview. Many (including the New York Times) have shown that the Daily News was unprepared for the interview, not Sanders.

Distortion #20: Sanders is a radical socialist. No, he does not support Castro, and yes, he does denounce the violence associated with communist regimes.

Distortion #21: The disgusting attacks on Sanders' "temperament." Enough said.

Distortion #22: Sanders opposed the auto bailout separately from TARP. That’s false.

Distortion #23: Sanders focuses on punishment in his attacks. In both the TARP and Flint instances, he focused his explanations on how his positions would help people.

Distortion #24: Sanders blamed his opposition on African American voters. No, that’s the media, not Sanders, which insinuates that Sanders is running against African American interests. The fact is that Clinton has pandered to different groups, by changing her rhetoric based on the state’s demographics.

This article does contain some legitimate criticisms. For one, the Sanders campaign doesn’t stress often enough that the Republicans are far more in bed with Wall Street than Clinton will ever be. She is better than them on every issue. Sanders also worryingly allows appeals to ideological purity instead of focusing on specific issues.

I also agree that Sanders is wrong on many issues. The article mentioned TARP; I’m more concerned with other issues, including with foreign policy, immigration, and trade.

However, the article’s vile distortions have deligitimized any point it was trying to make. Its characterization of Sanders and his supporters as sexist, ignorant assholes has laid bare a truly disgusting element in this campaign.