Mother Jones - "You Might Very Well Be the Cause of Cancer": Read Bernie Sanders' 1970s-Era Essays

[TomCADem]

I see a lot of posts referring to videos of Bernie Sanders back in 1988 to deny that he told Warren that a woman could not win against Trump. Well, if we are going to look back at Bernie's public statements as reflective of his current views, then let's look and consider what he has written as noted in this article by Mother Jones. Compulsory education erodes freedom? Rape fantasies?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-freeman-sexual-freedom-fluoride/

Last month Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent socialist seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, repudiated a 1972 essay he wrote for the Vermont Freeman, an alternative newspaper, which included depictions of a rape fantasy from male and female perspectives. On Meet the Press, he dismissed the article as a “piece of fiction” exploring gender stereotypes—”something like Fifty Shades of Grey.”

Yet as the New York Times recently reported, during his years as a contributor to the Freeman in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Sanders often wrote about sexual norms, as he presented a broader critique of repressive cultural forces that he believed were driving many Americans literally insane. His early writings reflect a political worldview rooted in the fad psychology and anti-capitalist rhetoric of the era and infused with a libertarianesque critique of state power. Sanders feared that the erosion of individual freedom—via compulsory education, sexual repression, and, yes, fluoridated water—began at birth. And, he postulated, authoritarianism might even cause cancer.

* * *
In a 1969 essay for the Freeman called “Cancer, Disease and Society,” Sanders, then 28, contended that conformity caused cancer by breaking down the human spirit and inflicting emotional trauma. He quoted liberally from Reich’s 1948 book, The Cancer Biopathy, which, he noted, was “very definite about the link between emotional and sexual health, and cancer,” and he walked readers through Reich’s theory about the consequences of suppressing “biosexual excitation.”

Then Sanders got to the point: “The above references, in no uncertain terms, state that you might very well be the cause of cancer.”

[question everything]

1. Old story discussed here many times

[Hortensis]

11. Yes, but people don't have personality transplants. I was there.

I didn't believe ANY of that stuff. Nor did my friends. Problem is, though he's learned not to say that kind of thing as he's profeessionalized, Sanders still has some very odd views.

Have you read Sanders' NYT eye-opening editorial board interview from the other day? He explains repeatedly that he and the board live in different worlds (one agrees). In his, he's going to be a legislating revolutionary leader, spending his term flying around the country drumming up such overwhelming support for his legislation that he'll be making McConnell an "offer he can't refuse." Apparently the president will be leading people marching in such huge numbers that McConnell will have no choice but to knuckle to the will of the people in the streets, instead of ignoring marches as he normally does.

The interview offers a number of such views into the world in Sanders' head. Very revealingly, the Democrats and the rest of the people who in the real world actually write and pass legislation don't seem to exist in Sanders' World, and he seems to plan to fulfill his campaign promises with the assistance of "the people" alone. In this long interview, one mention of his fellow Democrats is the usual hit, false-equating us with Republicans, and below is the other mention of the Democrats who in the real world write and pass the only non-Republican legislation he'd be signing:

...I think we have more followers on my Senate office than probably almost all the Democratic senators combined. And while I worry very much that Trump has 60 million followers on Twitter, we, I think, have reached the 10 million level.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-nytimes-interview.html

Now tell me none of this current replacement of reality with Sanders World is relevant to discussion of a man who, in this era when our nation's suddenly more than a little bonkers itself, is a genuine contender for President of the United States, to be our alternative to Trump.

Sanders' 2016 interview revealing him to be genuinely shockingly, amazingly ignorant (after over a quarter century in DC) of some of the ways he could use the federal government to fulfill his campaign promises. This interview helps explain how that could be. He doesn't plan to use it so never felt a need to understand how the various parts of the executive branch work.

And, oh, yes. I do believe Sanders was mostly serious and not simply avoiding honest answers. Because he's always been this way.

[question everything]

17. You will not get any defence from me regarding Sanders

I just think that repeating this story will not change anyone's mind.

(When I referred to it in 2016 my post was hidden..)

[Hortensis]

18. :) to 2016. I think Sanders is currently batting well above

the fairly finite group who were drawn by The Real Bernie Sanders.

He's not been pulling as many regular Democrats as in 2016, but their numbers are moving up as candidates drop out and new, unsuspecting people start engaging. They'll drop as people learn more about him as a person, but the sooner people know enough about him to make informed decisions the better.

And, after all, it's his duty to tell them what he believes and what kind of president he would be; and even if he doesn't see it quite that way, it's still absolutely their right to know.

Completely agree these old stories from his young and middle years should not be made more of than they are, but not less either. And that's why I brought up this week's NYT editorial board interview: to compare and illustrate that, although specific beliefs may have changed, he's still a recognizably older version of his younger self. And not the mere variation that his presence within a group of typical Democrats might lead the unaware to assume.

[lapfog_1]

2. A lot of science fiction writers of that age

wrote about sexual norms (it was the age of free love) and society...

Robert Heinlein wrote Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (polygamous marriages)

Robert Silverberg wrote "Up the Line" (time traveling to have sex with your ancestors)

Philip Jose Farmer wrote Image of the Beast (sex and violence)

so I might forgive Sanders for writing speculative fiction on the topic... OTOH, none of those scifi authors ever ran for President.

[TidySum]

3. Really?

We're going back to the 1970s now to smear Bernie with out of context quotes? Yet comments by other candidates from several years ago are ancient history?

[Cha]

4. With BS' own words?!

[TidySum]

5. Context matters

And his name is Bernie Sanders, not BS.

[TomCADem]

6. Got it. 1988 Video is Okay.

But 1970s written essays are not. Is it because disco is worse than funk? Why is it okay to look at a Bernie video in the 1980s versus his writings in the 1970s regarding what he said to Warren in a few years ago?

[TidySum]

7. I'm fine with both

Provided they're both shown in their proper context. It'd be nice also if supporters of other candidates didn't pretend that a comment made by their candidate in 2008 is so long ago that it should be ignored.

[LanternWaste]

12. It then begs the question...

what is the relevant amount of time before an action, sentiment or statement becomes "so long ago that it should be ignored..."?

And on what objective measure is that based?

[Autumn]

14. Just don't post anything about Biden that's two months old.

[ehrnst]

16. Repeating their own words is not smearing

And what would be the point of the primaries if candidates aren't allowed to discuss each other?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

8. We are talking 40-50 years ago

I wrote and did some cringeworthy stuff 40-50 years ago. Just sayin'.

[Apple Fritter]

9. Man....only boring people don't get into erotica

[MFM008]

10. In the 60s

I believed in Faireys, even put milk in bowls out for them.
Minds change, you learn, did I mention I was 7 at the time?

[Zolorp]

13. I read those essays back in 2016

They are why I cannot support Sanders.

[ehrnst]

15. 28 years old... Not a teenager. (nt)