RUTHFULLY YOURS

Win or lose, the Sanders campaign has its story. Bernie Sanders is the authentic candidate; the unapologetic progressive who pushes the left’s agenda without worrying about offending anyone.

Bernie doesn’t pander. Just look at him glaring into the camera, angrily delivering the same “smash capitalism” stump speech and then waiting for the local college students to take selfies with him. You may disagree with him. But he’s authentic, a curmudgeon who says whatever he really thinks.

And if you believe that, there’s a bridge in Bernie’s old Brooklyn neighborhood you can buy.

The left is not an authentic political movement. It values dogma, not passion. What it sells is the appearance of passion and the hollow illusion of self-expression while pushing a rigid agenda.

The real story of the Bernie Sanders campaign is not that voters reward authenticity, but the illusion of it. Obama beat Hillary because he seemed more authentic. But he was just better at pandering to the left while appearing to be natural and rehearsed in a way that you have to rehearse a lot to achieve.

Bernie Sanders has thrived by abandoning whatever made him authentic and becoming a robot reciting dogma in a voice borrowed from Larry David. Hillary Clinton never had a soul, but Bernie Sanders sold his in the hopes of beating her. And he got a bad deal on his soul because he can’t even seem to do that.

Originally Bernie Sanders was an independent who held unconventional views on some issues and wasn’t tied down to the Democratic Party and its widely loathed identity politics. Instead he could just do his old time Wall Street Socialist shtick and score populist points with angry voters without having to pander to every group and cause in the progressive politically correct spectrum of stupidity.

This was the Bernie Sanders who told Ezra Klein that he opposed open borders because it “says essentially there is no United States” and “would make everybody in America poorer.”

“You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?” Bernie barked.

Liberal heads exploded. Bernie tried to defend his views and then surrendered. A few months later, he was calling for amnesty for everyone, even illegal immigrants who had already been deported, without securing the borders, and attacking Hillary Clinton for being too hard on illegal aliens.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist who is running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination against Hillary Clinton, has made utterly irresponsible accusations against Israel that would make Palestinian propagandists proud.

During an interview Sanders conducted with the editorial board of the Daily News on April 1, Sanders accused Israel of “indiscriminate” attacks against “innocent” Palestinians in Gaza. As a result, he said, “a lot of innocent people were killed who should not have been killed.”

Without citing any basis for his claim, Sanders stated his recollection that “over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza.” The Daily News checked the figure online, which turned out to be about 2,300 killed, and 10,000 wounded. Even those figures are questionable with regard to actual civilian casualties if they rely on United Nations sources. The UN’s sources included the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is run by Hamas’s very own Mufiz al-Makhalalati.

Israel’s former ambassador to the United States Michael Oren was unsparing in his criticism of Sanders’ outlandish assertions: “He accused us of a blood libel. He accused us of bombing hospitals. He accused us of killing 10,000 Palestinian civilians. Don’t you think that merits an apology?”

Hillary Rodham Clinton says Bernie Sanders is not qualified to be president. Senator Sanders says Mrs. Clinton is not qualified to be president. Both of them are correct, but there’s a bit more to the question.

Mrs. Clinton is a lifelong political grifter who poses as a feminist champion while riding on the coattails of her husband, an old-fashioned intern-diddling patriarchal chauvinist who just happens to have been the most gifted politician of his generation before his decline to his current diminished state. Like that of Michelle Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s so-called career in the private sector and in activism rose in neatly incremental tandem with her husband’s elevation through the ranks of political office. If you believe Mrs. Obama was being paid three-hundred grand-plus for vaguely defined administrative work or that Mrs. Clinton’s legal and cattle-futures-trading careers thrived without their patrons taking notice of the vast political power accumulated by their husbands, you are a naïf.

Mrs. Clinton over the years did successfully exploit her marriage to a powerful and vile man into two notable positions of her own: senator from New York and secretary of state. As a senator, she was — at best — undistinguished, merely punching the clock as she prepared to run for the presidency. Unfortunately for her, an equally ambitious nobody senator from Illinois was following the same program, and he is a better politician than she is. As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was catastrophic: Our allies were alienated, our enemies emboldened, our diplomats abroad slaughtered like livestock. Our national reputation is in tatters and our international prestige greatly diminished, thanks in no small part to her incompetence and that of the president she served.

Of his many outrageous campaign statements, perhaps Donald J. Trump’s most important ones concern his would-be role as president of the United States.

When told that uniformed personnel would disobey his unlawful order as president to torture prisoners and kill civilians, Trump menacingly replied “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse, believe me.” Responding to criticism by the speaker of the House, Trump spoke like a Mafia don: “Paul Ryan, I don’t know him well, but I’m sure I’m going to get along great with him. And if I don’t? He’s gonna have to pay a big price.” Complaining that the United States’ international standing has declined, Trump promised to make foreigners “respect our country” and “respect our leader” by creating an “aura of personality.” Concerning the media, which he despises, Trump said, “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”

He encourages participants at his rallies physically to assault critics and has offered to cover their legal fees. He has twice re-tweeted an American Nazi figure. Only under pressure did he reluctantly disavow support from David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. [He kept a copy of Hitler’s collected early speeches, My New Order, by his bed. He called on followers to swear allegiance to him, evoking Hitlergruß-like salutes.]

In these and other ways, the Republican presidential candidate breaches the normal boundaries of American politics. He wants the military, the congress, foreign governments, the press, and ordinary citizens to submit to his will. His demands, and not some musty 18th-century documents, are what count. Trump presents himself as billionaire, master dealmaker, and nationalist who can get things done, never mind the losers and the fine print.

We read over and over again how Donald J. Trump is running a campaign against “the establishment” in the Republican Party. The term sounds horrible and dangerous. But when you seriously think about it, the Republican Party “establishment” has one purpose—to maintain the party as a viable opposition vehicle to the plans of the Democratic Party. This is what a two-party political system should be about. Without two major political parties, America’s democratic form of government collapses and the United States becomes a socialist one-party state. The Trump candidacy threatens to destroy the two-party system.

Trump and his allies have made the term “establishment” into a dirty word. But Trump, an outsider with a history of supporting the other party, is trying to stage a hostile takeover of the GOP. The apparent plan is to make the Republican Party into a carbon copy of the European far-right “populist” parties that serve Russian interests. Some of these, like the National Front of France, are Russian-funded.

Interestingly, Donald J. Trump has a cordial relationship with the Moscow establishment headed by Vladimir Putin, but despises the Republican establishment in the U.S. For example, Trump has nothing but contempt for Mitt Romney, who ran against President Obama in 2012. For all his faults, Romney at least recognized the dangers posed by Russia. By contrast, Trump talks about a strategic alliance with Putin.

Putin’s network of shell companies and tax havens has recently been exposed in the so-called Panama Papers as a method by which he protects billions of dollars in personal wealth. One has to wonder whether Putin also maintains a global network of agents and sympathizers to make sure the Free World wilts in the face of Russian military aggression in Europe and the Middle East. One would have to be naïve to think no such network exists. Indeed, Trump is clearly a part of it, for he attacks NATO and various U.S. allies, including South Korea and Japan, and receives the open support of the Kremlin and its agents. Foreign intervention in an American presidential campaign has never been this blatant.

Supporters of Trump, who despise the Republican Party establishment, don’t like to talk about Trump’s ties to the Moscow establishment. This blindness has made it possible for Putin to strike gold, in the geopolitical sense, through Trump’s success in the Republican Party. It’s Trump’s foreign policy vision, such as it is, that could mean the demise of the Republican Party as a political vehicle for those who offer a realistic analysis of the military dangers posed by Russia and China. It’s true that Trump talks about China, in the sense that its economic power is a threat, but he is mute on the Russia-China military alliance in foreign affairs and the threat that it poses.

It is significant that Trump gets along better with Putin and his comrades than with “fellow” Republicans. That could be because he has mostly been a Democrat throughout his business career and has sought business deals in the former USSR and Russia. He calls Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and others in the GOP the worst of names, including liar, and yet Putin is considered by Trump to be a strong leader doing a good job for Russia. Trump even apologizes for the regime’s murder of journalists and political dissidents.

Bernie Sanders caused the Panama Papers. Bernie of Vermont didn’t do it by himself, of course. The world’s most famous socialist, and Hillary Clinton’s albatross, had a lot of help. Spare me the crocodile tears over the immorality of tax avoidance. Panama is an indictment of government greed.

After World War II, the governments of the West established tax regimes to support the reconstruction of their nations. Six decades later, that tax machinery, which runs the social-welfare states in the countries Bernie Sanders cites in every campaign stop as a model for America, has run totally amok—an unaccountable, devouring monster. Billionaires aren’t the only ones who run from it.

Most governments, including ours, overtax their citizens to feed their own insatiable need for money. Then the legal thieves running the government and their cronies, unwilling to abide the tax levels they created, move their wealth offshore to places like Panama. Arguably, all the world’s people should be able to move their assets “offshore” to escape governments that are smothering economic life and growth, which has stalled in the U.S., Europe and Asia.

Speaking of crocodile tears, Barack Obama spent Tuesday bragging that corporate tax inversions are akin to Panama Papers’ tax avoidance. Mr. Obama said “corporations,” another swearword invoked by Bernie Sanders at every stop, are “gaming the system.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Ted Cruz won the Wisconsin Republican primary tonight, making it much more difficult for Donald Trump to win the GOP nomination before the convention in July (indeed, he now needs the same percent of remaining delegates as Bernie Sanders does to win the Democrat primary). As the results were coming in, The Donald released a pitiful, nasty statement unworthy of a presidential candidate.

Look up “sore loser” in the dictionary, and you’re likely to find the Trump campaign statement after Wisconsin. Yes, it is that bad. Don’t believe me? Fine, here it is in all of its glory:In one statement, Trump denounced Cruz as a liar(no surprise there), a “puppet,” and an establishment “Trojan horse.” Furthermore, The Donald accused Cruz of coordinating with Super PACs and being “totally” controlled by them. A Tea Party conservative might find it ironic that Trump compares Cruz (once nearly universally hated among GOP elites) to the “establishment,” declaring that he had “the entire party apparatus behind him.” It is true that more moderate Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, and Jeb Bush have supported Cruz, but the Texas senator is still a far cry from an “establishment puppet.” These are less the arguments of a confident challenger and more the complaints of a spoiled child. Some have characterized such comments as “extreme whining,” not without merit. Trump also complained about being treated unfairly on other occasions, especially by Fox News. Here’s a newsflash: Presidents do not get treated fairly. If you really want to win this thing, you need to accept that.Compare this statement with Marco Rubio’s concession speech, or don’t. After all, it’s impossible to compare petulant whining with dignified withdrawal.

Donald Trump panicked the foreign policy establishment when he said NATO is obsolete and ill-suited to fight terrorism. By saying that, and adding, “We can’t afford to do this anymore,” Mr. Trump drew gleefully harsh responses from Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Cruz said, “Donald Trump is wrong that American should retreat from Europe, retreat from NATO, hand Putin a major victory and while he’s at it, hand ISIS a major victory.”

Mrs. Clinton’s claim to the presidency rests on her experience as secretary of state. If you read her memoir, “Hard Choices,” you’ll inevitably conclude that although she went nearly everywhere and conferred with almost everyone in power, by her own recitation she never persuaded anyone to support any American position or undertaking. On the basis of that non-expertise, Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Trump’s position on NATO “would reverse decades of bipartisan American leadership and send a dangerous signal to friend and foe alike.” She would, of course, leave NATO undisturbed on its current course.

At the risk of injecting facts into politics, we need to understand what NATO has become and why, before we can try to fix it or consign it to the ash heap of history.

Mr. Trump’s assertion that NATO isn’t constituted properly to deal with terrorism is correct but irrelevant. NATO was designed in the 1940s to deal with the postwar threats of Soviet aggression, not with the then-unforeseen terrorist threat. We cannot forget that after Sept. 11, 2001, NATO — for the first time — invoked Article 5 of its charter, the collective defense provision that states an attack against one member is an attack against all. Many NATO members, including Poland, Britain and others, sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, joining our wars against terrorism.

Midway through historian G.P. Baker’s biography of the Roman general and master politician Sulla (139-78 B.C.), I came across the following two sentences: “There are some systems which naturally take control out of the hands of good men. There are even some which necessarily put it in the hands of bad ones.” Baker’s observation took my mind away from Rome and back, where it was not eager to go, to the current presidential campaign. How did it come about that we have five such unimpressive contenders for the presidency of the United States? Is there something in our system of electing candidates that makes inevitable the rise of the mediocre and even the exaltation of the vulgar?

Difficult to find anyone who talks about the presidential primaries with any enthusiasm. Even yellow-dog Democrats and academic feminists can’t get much worked up for Hillary Clinton. The young are apparently taken with the socialist fantast Bernie Sanders—but then, being young, they don’t realize he is nothing more than a digitally remastered 1930s replay.
On the Republican side, John Kasich talks endlessly about his own accomplishments—he balanced the national budget, he worked splendidly with those across the aisle when in Congress, in Ohio he has done everything but wipe out ISIS—in a manner that, though he seems unaware of it, is off-putting even to voters who want to like him. Ted Cruz is the very model of the contrast gainer: He looks good, that is, only in contrast to Donald Trump.

Mr. Trump’s vulgarity is nonpareil—and by his vulgarity I don’t mean his profanity merely, but the vulgar quality of his speech, his thought, his very sentiments. So low have things fallen owing to Donald Trump that lifelong Republicans have told me that, in a Trump-versus-Clinton election, they are likely to hold their nose and vote for Mrs. Clinton. CONTINUE AT SITE