The following commentaries about the Democrat debate last night in South Carolina are worthy as they give us the flavor of the evening’s proceedings. While they make some insightful observations and prognostications, some are arguable, even irritating.
At The Federalist by Brian Linville (excerpt)
Why Bernie Sanders As Democrats’ Nominee Would Be Best For The Country
Better to gird for the fight against socialism now than to put it off to another day .
If, on the other hand, Sanders is the nominee and goes on to lose badly, the centrists in the Democratic Party will have an opportunity to reassert themselves. In this, Sanders’s defeat could be a repeat of George McGovern’s landslide loss to Richard Nixon in 1972. In the aftermath of that election, Democrats reckoned with the results, recognizing that radicals had taken the reins of the party. Moderates then took charge to shepherd a return to electoral viability. A similar reaction post-Walter Mondale in 1984 led to Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 as a centrist.
Such a Democratic shift would certainly improve their prospects in future elections. It would also incentivize Republicans to hew closer to the center. Both parties, shocked by the populist insurgencies of Trump and Sanders, would be compelled to reckon with the unsavory results of the post-Cold War neoliberal consensus that enriched coastal elites while leaving much of the country behind.
We Must Crush Socialism to Maintain Stability
One of America’s great strengths throughout history has been the domination of our politics by parties of the center-left and center-right. When power changes hands, the shift is subtle. This stability is critical for businesses and households to make decisions about what the future will look like, and it has enabled our enviable record of sustained growth. The results for nations who alternate between far-left and far-right governments are much less impressive — looking at you, Argentina, and much of the rest of Latin America for that matter.
We would ask Mr Linville to please identify the “far right” – who is their candidate – what are their positions – what is inimical about their positions — are they in any way plausible candidates? The article, while good in some respects, creates straw men of no political consequence for purposes of making a useless point. We know the far-left candidates. They are real. They are each of the Democrat candidates driven there by the relentless logic of big government. We also know that the center- left and to some extent the center-right element he refers to (unnamed as well) only serve to ratchet up expectations and dependence on government.
Reading more about the Dem debate this morning:
Winners and Losers of the South Carolina Debate
At RedState by Joe Cunningham — His commentary plays up Amy Klobuchar, which we find shortsighted, as in oblivious to her being as ultimately radical as the rest, by vote record and stated position, a matter here and there simply being more nuanced. They are all inextricably on the same glide path. Implicating one as moderate in any way is not useful or insightful.
Also at RedState, this one by Bonchie:
Debate Reaction: Elizabeth Warren’s Strategy Becomes Crystal Clear
Plausible, based on the description of the proceedings, Warren now maneuvering for Vice-President slot on Sanders ticket.
