Chris Matthews's televised destruction of Bernie Sanders

For 30 minutes prior to last night's self-destructive GOP debate, I watched Chris Matthews destroy Bernie Sanders in a "Hardball" college-tour interview.

I felt nothing but pity for Sanders. This was the first interview I have seen in which Bernie's interlocutor applied a withering reality-check to the candidate's "political revolution" of so much proffered appeal. He will do this and he will do that, said Bernie; he will clean out Washington's filthy stable of corrupt money, he will guarantee every American healthcare, he'll provide free college education, he'll tax the plutocrats as plutocrats should be taxed, he will, in brief, usher in a progressive Elysium.

And so it went, for half of a half-hour. The other half consisted of the MSNBC host's returns to Earth. Yes, yes, that's all very nice, countered Matthews repeatedly. But how do you actually accomplish it? — any of it? — he persisted. And against all of Matthews's countering came Sanders's whimsical universe of a magical, starlit political revolution.

Through People Power, said Sanders; by amassing We the People against the forces of Washington wickedness. One mustn't negotiate with Mitch McConnell, said Sanders; no, no, one must gather the forces of virtue outside of Sen. McConnell's marbled institution, whereupon said virtuous forces demand that he do the virtuous thing. One relentlessly directs populist-progressive pressure against the wicked, the corrupt, the, uh, popularly elected of differing sentiments, said Sanders — though he omitted that last part.

The half-hour look on Matthews's face was to be cherished, capturing, as it did, the stunned bewilderment of all still residing on the planet. Mitch McConnell as well as House Freedom Caucusers are rather unlikely to bow to populist-progressive hordes, observed Matthews, especially seeing how McConnell & Co. will be reelected to ignore them. What else in heaven's name is a red-state senator or some U.S. representative from the ill-educated swamps of Mississippi to do? In their elected chambers, each represents admittedly aggravating but nonetheless democratically valid positions. And there's not a damn thing that a President Sanders could do to move them from those positions. Nothing.

That is quite literally the other side of Sanders's political revolution: The other side gets a vote. Yet Sanders's "We the People" routine was blindly dismissive of Matthews's "We Those Other People" argument. Time and again Sanders simply came back to the intoxicated whimsy of an all-powerful progressive movement — one shattering every dim bulb in its determined path.

In the face of Matthews's remorseless prosecution and grilling realities, there were moments — visible moments — when Sanders seemed to realize that his jig was up, and he was momentarily left wordless. In the secular hell of temporal congressional politics, legitimately elected counterrevolutionary populists wouldn't give a flying fuck what Sanders's political revolutionaries were demanding; what's more, the latter herd would soon thin and scatter in profound disappointment. It was, they would realize, all a mirage, a false promise of revolutionary change in a nonrevolutionary nation. But Sanders would gather himself in each moment of self-gotcha and robotically relaunch Rubiolike into yet another fanciful seminar on People Power.

I genuinely pitied the man. There's a prodigious difference between dreaming and working for change — a difference that our greatest presidents, from Lincoln to FDR to Obama, learned early and learned well. Bernie Sanders? At the age of 74, he's still seated at the head of a bootless graduate seminar on utopian politics — misleading the pitifully naive.

 

Comments

[Peter G]

I couldn't even finish watching the thing I felt so bad for Bernie. After Bernie answered how he would deal with McConnell I tuned out and changed the channel. Those millions gathered outside McConell's window demanding he cave to Bernie's demands had better all come from Kentucky thought I or all they are going to get is a cheery fuck you. How is it possible to sit in congress for 25 years as both a congressman and a senator and not have even a teensy clue about how a democracy works?

[Bob]

You proceed from the notion that Sanders has really, really, cross his heart and hope to die, been running to be the Democratic nominee. That is fanciful. He's a 74 year old Socialist Jew for gods' sakes. Do you imagine he's stupid?

He's taken an opportunity to pull the Democratic Party, or at least the national debate, to the left. He's done so with more success than he or anyone else probably expected. He's an indicator times have changed and the Democrats can too. Hillary has followed him as far as she feels necessary whether she plans to actually follow through or not.

If you're so sure Trump can't win why all the hand-wringing over Bernie? Worry he's the next Ralph Nader or over getting the Old South back? Anxiety about socialism actually entering the national conversation? What?

[Peter G]

Did you watch the video?

[Bob]

Yes. What I saw was Bernie dancing around the fact that he's only in it to influence the debate. He can't actually come out and say it, can he? Matthews should have shined a bright light in his face and swung a rubber hose against his palm for effect. He seemed silly.

[57andFemale]

It is astonishing to me that never in Bernie's universe is there the idea of changing hearts and minds and ELECTING a different Congress. Never. He is right, everyone who doesn't see it or questions it, is the "evil establishment" to be dismissed and reviled. It is as childish a display as I have ever witnessed. I fully thought Bernie would win me over, until I actually listened to him and saw his infantile arguments, his thin skin, his myopia on anything that doesn't fit what he cares about. And frankly, he is not a Democrat, sneers at their very existence, yet uses them to get resources & a potential nomination. That ain't exactly lofty behavior.

Who in their right mind doesn't see that he would be a disastrous POTUS? You can agree with every of his (few) positions, and still any honest person who has spent time watching him in this campaign has to come to the conclusion that he would be one of the worst presidents in American history. He either believes his delusions that have nothing to do with the reality of American governance, or he will be proud of doing nothing because he's "principled". The world will crash and burn around Bernie's righteousness.

The notion that if we destroy everything, Utopia will result, is patently ridiculous. Why is America still the most powerful nation on earth? Because we have maintained a stability of governance for our entire existence. The GOP has made a significant dent in that tradition, and Bernie would seek to blow it up. The GOP presidential field - oh, please.

I am 66 years old. I participated in anti-Vietnam War, civil rights, women's rights, voting rights. I am now having to fight to maintain those rights, much less extend them as they should be. Bernie's cavalier attitude with our future is damn near treasonous. He could actually help by moving things left in a constructive manner. Instead, his ego is more important than our future.

[michael]

Let us all be careful for what we wish for. There is a small political revolution occurring, but it is on the far right. They are destroying the Republican Party. Do they have enough steam to win the White House? I was gobsmacked when America returned W to the White House in '04. Could Trump be next?

[Marc McKenzie]

"The notion that if we destroy everything, Utopia will result, is patently ridiculous."

Exactly. But remember, those who preach that we must destroy everything to create Utopia never consider the fact that it will, and always has, backfire. I read recently that Utopia can "only be approached across a sea of blood", but those who scream for it do not care if many suffer and/or will die.

[Peter G]

I agree he can't. So he deflects every time. It is where he deflects that is the problem. And that's where he begins this video. The cure for all evils begins with campaign finance reform. Why should I believe this? As far as I know it is still illegal to buy votes. All money can do is persuade. So who or what is it persuading people to do? Is it persuading voters to act against their own interest? To which I answer only voters get to decide what their interests are. Is it to buy political or policy positions from politicians which the electorate would not tolerate? Since when does the electorate do that? And if the electorate is being fooled who gets to decide how they are being fooled and what they can be told is the truth? They get to make their minds up and no one else.

Let us presume that money does make a huge difference in election outcomes though there is now a huge body of evidence that this is not so for higher level offices where simple name recognition is key. Who thinks the other side (or your side) is going to cooperate in designing a campaign finance system that favors populist campaigns that literally assault the very concept of a political party as a community of interests and yield party control to the minority of people who vote in primaries?

In any event what would it change? Look at any other country in the industrialized world, all of whom have much more rigid campaign finance laws, and tell me which is not beset with the same financial and economic forces the US is? And if it succeeds in opening the political process to more candidates who have difficulty raising funds how does that increase the likelihood that they would get elected since it in no way changes the underlying beliefs of the electorate? My conclusion is that campaign finance law reform would change virtually nothing with regard to why people vote the way they do.

[Joy]

Well, thank you. I feel the same way but could not have said it as well. 59 and female and participated in the same things. You hit the nail on the head.

[Tom Benjamin]

Let me channel my wife - also 57 - who is particularly pissed off at the Progressives who blithely claim they will never support Hillary, so if they want to beat the Republicans she had better support Bernie.

"Well, what about women?" my wife asks. "We're the fucking backbone of the Democratic party. When is it our turn? When do we get our candidate?"

My wife would also make three points:

1) Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate. Her credentials are impeccable. In fact, none of the other candidates are really qualified. Her career accomplishments dwarf every one of her critics.

2) She is - and always has been - held to a different standard than other politicians. Despite decades of vitriol, accusations and slanderous investigations, there is not a scintilla of evidence that demonstrates she is anything but ethical and honest.

3) Damned rights it is time for a woman to take on this job. There are generations of women who will cry when she is sworn in. There will be some women who can remember fighting for the vote who will dance in the streets. It will be a big fucking deal to my wife.

If not Hillary, who? If not Hillary, when?

She thinks she knows the answer to the question "If not Hillary, why?"

[57andFemale]

So well said.  There is so much at stake right now - we cant afford such nonsense.  And thats what it is - nonsense. 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal lion if there ever was one, said that Roe v. Wade, in retrospect, was too much, too fast And we are living with a half century of backlash.  I want change, I want improvement, I want a better, progressive society - but I believe what Obama believes: incremental change is what lasts because it is not destructive.   
Faith

[57andFemale]

Thank you, Joy.

I'm not only 66 years old and fought those battles of the 60's and 70's. I'm also Jewish. I'm fighting Nazi-style fascism in the U.S. in 2016? How the hell did that happen?

But fight we must.

[57andFemale]

Dubya in 2000 was the beginning. Never in modern history had such a dimwit been remotely considered for POTUS. It was the beginning of the elimination of basic standards of competency and decency. And the collapse since then has been remarkable.

But Dems can no longer sit by and lament that they are all "crazy". They have won way too much already and could possibly destroy this great nation. It's a real battle and Dems must be engaged and serious about it. No holding back on Fascist and Nazi comparisons, because they are true, and dangerous.

Bernie's experiment with what is, truly, Marxism - try it 15 years from now.Play with deflated expectations later. Not now when so much is at stake. There is no wiggle room.

[Bob]

Bernie will probably lose by a wide margin tomorrow and fewer people will have to suffer the idea he's more than what he actually is.

[RM]

Tom, your wife must be living in my head! These are the exact same points I make regarding Hillary to those who are all about Bernie. I wept when Obama was sworn in, and I hope to have the opportunity to weep (with joy, that is) on January 20, 2017. I

This election is too damn important to fuck up.

[CindyV]

Two years ago the democrats put up a very talented woman to run again Mitch McConnell. Who was there to help her campaign? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton along with Elizabeth Warren. Bernie was a no-show. This is why his Revolution won't go far. When he had a chance to ditch Mitch, Bernie wasn't there.

[MadamX2016]

Update Feb. 27, 2016

South Carolina

73.5% Clinton
26.0% Sanders

I guess those 'Blacks' really do have t.v. in their dirt-floor, shotgun shacks. Who knew?

[JL Wortham-Morgan]

I agree that Sanders is only a "message candidate"...what remains to be seen is whether or not Bernie has forgotten that fact. It may well be that all his adoring fans have created delusions of grandeur and inflated his ego beyond the ability to think critically. All that attention from fanatical worshippers can become intoxicating and he may very well be drunk on his own kool-aide.