CommentsONE MAN’S OPINION-In the February 21, 2020 issue of Forward, which was established by Socialist Jews in 1897, Aiden Pink writes:
“One of the things that struck me is that someone involved in the Jewish community was saying to me that she didn’t want Sanders,” [Karla] Goldman recounted. “She said, ‘I grew up with him’” – not literally, but that she was raised around Sanders-esque types. “I thought, ‘She could probably say the same thing about Mike Bloomberg.’” (Karla Goldman is a professor of Judaic studies at the University of Michigan.)
If you’re an elderly Jew, you know what Karla Goldman meant. Since I was born during WW II, I too was raised around Sanders-esque types. Their heyday was the early 1930s when the former Soviet Union was their model. They believed in “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” On a superficial level, the meme is laudable. Who adopted its essence and ran with it? Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who by today’s standards would be a billionaire: e.g., a Bloomberg.
Aiden (The Younger) Pink’s contrast of Bernie to Bloomberg is telling. Young Jews tend to dislike Bloomberg, while most elderly Jews do not care much for Sanders. As the saying goes, “Been there, done that.”
Idealism can set the goal, but it provides no road map for reaching the destination. In the 1930s, FDR found a roadmap. We forget that FDR’s road was arduous, and he did not achieve all the goals and programs he wanted. In other words, FDR became the patron saint of progressives because “FDR got it done.” After WW II and the GI Bill, FDR’s socialism provided the foundation for millions of Americans to “move on up to the Eastside” or out to the suburbs. The time for ideology had been replaced by the time of doing.
Like FDR, Bloomberg has a track record of getting it done. Who doesn’t know his slogan, “Mike will get it done”? In other words, he addresses what people actually need and want – success in improving their lives.
Bernie, however, is still locked in 1930s idealism with no personal track record of accomplishing anything. He was a Senator the entire eight years of the Obama Administration and what did he accomplish? Nothing. Before that he was in the US House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007. What did Sanders accomplish? Nothing! In 1999, Sanders did, however, oppose the bipartisan repeal of Glass-Steagall. Bloomberg, on the other hand, emulates the post WW II generation which capitalized on the benefits of the New Deal. Like FDR, Bloomberg has made mistakes, but mistakes come with being a doer.
What’s Bernie’s slogan? It’s “Not me. Us.” Could it be vaguer? Candidate Amy Klobuchar, who is also Jewish, uses “Let’s get to work.” Like Bloomberg, she focuses on action to improve people’s lives. “Not me. Us.” is reminiscent of the leftover 1930s Socialists who at Thanksgiving and Passover invariably railed against the energetic capitalism that was actually increasing the standard of living.
Which Is More Important, Study or Action?
This old Jewish question is relevant to Sanders vs. Bloomie. Answer #1: Action, as in study without action, yields nothing. Answer #2: Study, as it is what directs the type action. Both are necessary to turn Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness into reality. In fact, Bloomberg created a company based on the use of data to forge viable businesses – the marriage of study and action.
Why Being a Senator Is a Liability in this Year’s Presidential Race
Governors and mayors can point to specific actions they have taken and then show how their actions support goals the voters desire. Senators are talkers, not doers.
As a former mayor, Bloomberg rattles off a series of actions: increasing health insurance, creating jobs, decreasing crime and the jail population. He took on the gun lobby and the fossil fuel industry, not to mention that Bloomberg started a multi-billionaire dollar company which did not go bankrupt like Trump’s businesses. After decades of economic decline for the middle class, the season for doing has again arrived.
Kvetcher vs. Macher
Kvetching has its role and a Macher can also be a bully; most things in life come with pros and cons. When deciding who should run against Trump, however, a Larry David clone may not be the best choice.
‘None of the Above’ Is Not an Option
We Dems have to run someone. Do we continue with the party of failure, the party of all talk and no show -- or do we run someone who can actually beat Trump?
On the other hand, if we Dems put forth a has-been kvetcher, don’t be surprised if Trump becomes President for Life.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Illustration: James Furguson. Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
