I can’t think of a clearer example of pure Progressive logic than this example of Socialist Bernie Sanders, the wannabe candidate for President. One has only to look to North Korea and similar locales for the ultimate design. Why do we need options in deodorant choices? Cars? In that case anything? Think of all of the starving children who would be helped if only we implemented total government direction. Hats off to Bernie. He tells us what life will be like as we march down the road toward a totalitarian state. Even the Washington Post had a bit of trouble with this plan. So first we come for the pit spray, then we come for….. P.S. Bonus info. Senator Barack Obama supported Sanders in his run as an independent for Senator, dissing the Democrat candidate. Just to remind us where his heart lays. Here we go:
It’s a little bit unclear what Bernie Sanders has against the deodorant aisle. It is apparently, in the eyes of the Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination for president, a proxy for the ills of the American economy. Too many deodorant choices are bad, and so are too many sneakers. As Sanders told CNBC’S John Harwood, on the day he officially announced his candidacy:
If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn’t matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn’t matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.
The literal implication of that last sentence is that there some kind of a national trade-off between antiperspirant/Air Jordan variety and food for children. This makes sense if you believe that the government should be allocating the resources in the economy — in this case, directing fewer of them to personal hygiene and footwear and more to child nutrition. More at the Washington Post