Bernie Sanders Applied for 'Conscientious Objector' Status During Vietnam: Campaign Confirms

[BainsBane]

80. There are a few issues

One is trying to figure out what Sanders' views on the role of the military and how he would use it, and how that reconciles with his own decision not to serve. If he was a conscience objector in Vietnam, why is it okay to drop bombs on Muslims and support ongoing Israeli settlement in Palestine? People here have excoriated Clinton as a murderer and held Sanders up in direct contrast, when in fact there seems to be little contrast other than the fact Sanders had the good sense to vote against Iraq (but then of course he wasn't representing NY, where the 9/11 attacks occurred), and he himself refused to serve in the military while Clinton as a young woman in the sixties was never subject to the draft. Then of course Clinton has extensive diplomatic experience as Secretary of State, which would serve her well should she become president.

Then there is the fact a good many Sanders supporters change their views on key issues in accordance to what he says. They denounced Obama as a criminal for using drones, but say it's okay for Sanders to continue the program. Why? What is the difference?

Citizens typically look at candidates and make decisions based on qualifications and their views on the positions they advance. In the case of Sanders, his supporters decide what to believe based on what he says. The views of his supporters here thus become a bellwether to what to expect from his administration. We know his supporters will not hold him accountable for serving the interests of the subaltern majority or rolling back military incursions because many have already made clear none of those issues compare to Sanders political fortunes. Any criticism of him is deemed unacceptable and often results in hides. An avid Sanders supporter insisted that Bernie would incorporate supporters into his administration. Why would I want to live in a society where dissent is unacceptable, where the subaltern is told they have no right to question their president, who they should just accept will give them everything they need?

The irony is that people here criticize Clinton of changing her views and insulted her supporters as "camp weather vane." Yet I have never changed a single opinion to accommodate hers. My views remain my own, and I have never seen nor do I expect to find a candidate that reflects my values and concerns as a whole. I can and will vote for someone AND criticize them on key policies I am troubled by. Yet people here think it acceptable to pick up and drop major values (like peace and non-violence) in response to what a politician says. That causes me great concern.