Sanders at Hamilton

With Bernie Sanders’s recent endorsement of Joe Biden, ending his second run for the presidency, an assessment of his long career’s significance seems warranted. There is no better place to start than Hamilton College, where Sanders taught for a semester in the spring of 1990. Many students are unaware of the popular politician’s connection to our school, and except for a few digitized articles from the Spectator, the college’s newspaper, it appears that his time at Hamilton is little more than a distant memory to most. 

Sanders was brought to Hamilton by Dennis Gilbert, then head of the Sociology Department. They developed a strong relationship that led to Gilbert leaving Hamilton later in 1990 to assist Sanders’s first congressional campaign. Both are clearly men of the left: Sanders’s policies easily show it, while Gilbert’s scholarship more subtly supports this assessment. Gilbert published a book in 1991 that was arguably favorable to the Sandinistas, a Marxist-Leninist party with a violent approach to taking power in Nicaragua, and commented on the Nicaraguan situation often in the Spectator. The issue was a popular topic on the Hamilton campus, but Gilbert seems to have been even more interested in it. Sanders backed the Sandinistas and even attended one of their rallies during a personal trip to Latin America.

A trip to the college’s archives allowed me to retrieve a course catalogue for the Spring 1990 semester, where I found that Sanders taught two courses, focusing on democratic socialism and urban sociology. The descriptions of them are as follows:

235S Democracy and Socialism: An examination of the current state of American democracy and a look at democratic socialism as an alternative to capitalism. Why are the richest people in America getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer? Why are our citizens increasingly not voting? The role of Big Money and the media in perpetuating capitalist ideology. Democratic socialism and its relevance to democratic values as the United States enters the 21st century. 

335S The Problems and Potential of Urban Life: An examination of such urban problems as weak and corrupt political leadership, low citizen participation, crime, failing educational systems, deteriorating infrastructure, unhealthy environment, low-wage jobs, and homelessness. The importance of cities for the cultural and intellectual life of the nation. The quality of urban life and the role of recent federal policy. Field trips to various governmental agencies in Utica integral to the course.

When he is mentioned in the Spectator, Sanders is sometimes described as a social democrat, which may be loosely defined as an egalitarian who wishes to soften or humanize capitalism through governmental policies that stop short of actual socialism. Interestingly, however, the first course focused on “democratic socialism as an alternative to capitalism,” and there are many references in the Spectator to Sanders as a plain socialist who wishes to “redistribute wealth and power.” This begs the question of exactly where he lies on the political spectrum. Many have debated whether he is a social democrat, a democratic socialist, or something more radical, despite his insistence that he is a democratic socialist and not something else. Sanders appears to be deeply indebted to Karl Marx, and at Hamilton he mediated an open discussion titled “Marxism: A Rescue Attempt?” along with Gilbert. Sanders opened the discussion by pitting capitalism and socialism against each other and asserting that the former had not defeated the latter, even with the imminent demise of the Soviet Union. He argued that there were many serious problems in capitalist societies which needed to be addressed, ranging from poverty and wealth inequality to the lack of universal health care -- issues which Sanders continues to focus on today. 

The rest of the discussion seems to have dwelled on theoretical applications of Marxism, with Gilbert assessing Vladimir Lenin’s idea of the vanguard (leading and only useful) party as a “powerful but problematic idea.” Professor Robert Kurfirst, a visiting instructor in the Government Department at the time, argued that Marx’s ideas are still relevant if they are detached from the idea of revolution. While Sanders is not recorded as having joined the discussion after his opening remarks, it is safe to assume that he agreed with his colleagues that changes in or replacement of capitalism, whether it be the abolition of private property that Marx desired or a simpler drive for equality, must be brought about democratically. 

Yet Sanders has not been immune to distasteful impulses. It is plain that he wishes to greatly increase the scope and active role of federal power to achieve his goals, even refusing to deny that he would bring back the “era of big government” in 2016. And Professor Bob Paquette, former professor of history at Hamilton and my mentor at the Alexander Hamilton Institute, has  been known to occasionally describe Sanders as a communist in disguise. “Communism” is a label he was allegedly ambivalent about disavowing in the 1970s, once stating that “I don’t mind people coming up and calling me a communist … at least, they’re still alive.” And his relationship, in terms of attitude, with authoritarian regimes is troubling. From happily singing in his underwear with Russians while honeymooning in Soviet-era Moscow in 1988 to praising Cuba’s literacy programs despite flagrant human rights violations in the county, he has not been a stranger to making what can fairly be considered enabling comments about America’s enemies. 

Regarding Cuba, Sanders has even said Fidel Castro’s literacy program was well-intended despite being imposed by a dictator, seeming to ignore the nation’s historically high literacy rates and the nature of the program as statist indoctrination. This parallels his and Gilbert’s sympathy for the Sandinistas in 1990. Sanders clearly seems blinded by his ideology, unwilling to change his opinions despite overwhelming evidence against them. A particularly potent example is his long-standing position that America should operate under a system of Scandinavian socialism like Sweden’s, a claim that many students at Hamilton and on other campuses also boldly make without understanding the benefits of the capitalism they oppose. A major difficulty with this opinion is that Sweden is not a socialist state, but rather a social democracy with a homogeneous population whose wealth is largely historic and which enjoyed healthy growth after a free-market rebound following disastrous policies of economic redistribution, according to a comprehensive policy report by the Cato Institute. Taxation is certainly high there, although somewhat low for corporations, but the country arguably still has a capitalist ethos and system. As Swedish historian Johan Norberg writes, a Swedish model for America would actually mean a more open economy.

With these points in mind, how do professors at Hamilton remember Sanders? Professor Dan Chambliss, who was on leave that semester and whose position he filled, says he has almost “zero recollection” of Sanders beyond his being an interesting man to have teach here. Suggesting that capitalism and socialism are not a simple dichotomy but a spectrum (contrary to how Sanders framed the tension between them in the “Marxism: A Rescue Attempt?” discussion), Chambliss says Sanders merely wants to open more room for discussion on the issues he cares about. But he believes it’s an understatement to call him a social democrat, and that Sanders has consistently wished to shift the political vocabulary to show that socialism “isn’t actually that bad.” When asked about his comments on Cuba, Chambliss deemed it a “bogus issue” that was taken out of context, although he conceded that he does not know what Sanders’s actual views on the country are.

Others remember him differently. Most notably, Paquette has rejected the predominant narrative of Sanders as a sweet old man who wishes for peace and equality, instead describing him as an ideologue who became cantankerous when he discovered that Paquette, despite being educated in Marxist theory by his mentor Eugene Genovese, was not a man of the left himself. When I asked Paquette for a comment on Sanders, he responded:

Bernie Sanders occupied an office above mine in the Kirner-Johnson Building during the spring semester 1990. We had few conversations after the first unpleasant one, when he learned I was not a fellow Marxist, nor a fan of Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, a hot-button issue at the time. A strident class warrior, hardly an avuncular type, he tended to pronounce rather than converse and became animated when his left-wing clichés were challenged.

Regardless of how people at Hamilton remember him, Sanders has one defining quality: his consistency. While Chambliss was quick to note that he has not stubbornly remained the same in all of his viewpoints over the past 30 years, the progressive face of the Democratic Party has nonetheless remained a strident class warrior and champion of what he calls social justice throughout his career -- a fact that both his supporters and his detractors can respect. Some of his more reasonable goals have come to fruition, such as greater acceptance of gays in the military, while his radical ideas remain a cause for concern for proponents of the free market and others who fear a greater expansion of government. There have been occasional changes in his platform and his voting record, although they may be indicative of an incremental move to the left, paralleling a shift in his self-representation. By and large, however, from his time at Hamilton to the present, Sanders’s song has remained the same.

A Will to Meaning

It may be argued that no event has indelibly marked modern history as much as the tragedy of the Holocaust. As historians struggle to preserve the concentration camps where these atrocities were carried out, the experiences of those who survived have been forever recorded in art, literature, music, and popular culture. With these permanent reminders of what was perpetrated behind the drawn curtain of the Nazi regime, it is necessary to commit oneself to their study; for, as George Santayana famously wrote, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

One cannot be blamed for falling into a melancholy when absorbed in any work related to the Holocaust. Along with the grievous disregard for human life in the Stalinist regime and other communist states, the Holocaust represents one of the worst losses of human life in modern history. Literature on the subject ranges from the harrowing Night, by Elie Wiesel, to the graphic novel Maus and countless other works of fiction and nonfiction.

Viktor Frankl, the eminent psychiatrist, wrote Man’s Search for Meaning soon after he was liberated from a concentration camp. Throughout the work, which initially details his experiences at concentration camps that were not as visible as the infamous Auschwitz, Frankl illustrates both how horrendous the experience of the Holocaust was and his search for meaning in the suffering omnipresent in the camps. His conclusion, which is as powerful as it is provocative, is that humans, because of the powers of their deliberative minds, ultimately exist in order to find and extrapolate a meaning in their lives. This understanding is rooted in a form of existentialism, which does not despair of existence but rather searches for a feeling of validity in life.

This principle is opposed to earlier modern understandings of why humans exist. Sigmund Freud, with his belief that humans were perpetually propelled by insatiable primal instincts, maintained that they had a “will to pleasure,” in which achieving pleasure and avoiding pain is paramount. This, coupled with Freud’s understanding of the life and death drives, renders existence an inevitably and almost unintentionally hedonistic experience. Friedrich Nietzsche, and the psychologist Alfred Adler, argued instead for a “will to power.” In this concept, which is somewhat ambiguous, humans strive to exercise their power over other humans. In contrast to these two principles, Frankl proposed a third concept that goes beyond the principles of Freud and Nietzsche: a “will to meaning.”

Deeply rooted in his experiences surviving the Holocaust, Frankl’s will to meaning seeks to make the best of any negative experience by focusing on the good that may yet come. He connects this idea to the Greek word “logos,” which he understands as meaning reason. Everyone has some form of meaning in their lives, Frankl contends. Even during the Holocaust, he was motivated to survive by the desire to publish a manuscript he had lost to the Nazis, and many others endured simply with the hope of seeing their loved ones again. Developing his sentiments into a coherent system of thought, Frankl then proposes “logotherapy,” psychiatric therapy that strives to help individuals identify some form of meaning in their lives.

Logotherapy holds that there is meaning in existence even in the worst possible situations, like the Holocaust, and that even if humans cannot find sufficient meaning in a given place or time, they are still usually capable of altering their conditions, or at least their perceptions. This is a powerful idea, even in situations that are quite removed from Frankl’s context, the Holocaust. At a time when college students feel increasingly lonely and isolated, the idea that there is meaning in their existence may very well be comforting.

It is true that there is plenty of bad in the world and in existence, as exemplified by the Holocaust and many of the serious issues we face as a nation and society. Yet it is also evident that there is still plenty of good in the world today – the smell of petrichor, the satisfaction of academic recognition, and the gentle caress of a loved one. There will always be positivity, and there will always be negativity. One cannot successfully block out the bad in the world without also precluding oneself from the good. Thus, one must accept that there is both good and bad in existence in order to live a full life. This delicate balance may be best achieved by finding a meaning in life, and with this meaning in hand, life will be fruitful and enjoyable.

The Internet and Cultural Rot

During the early hours of July 14 of this year, 17-year-old Bianca Devins was killed in Utica after attending a concert. The man accused of killing her is 21-year-old Brandon Clark, who allegedly slit her throat and uploaded photos of her bloodied corpse to social media sites. (He has pleaded not guilty to the second-degree murder charge.) While the relationship between Bianca and Brandon was initially unclear, the two had met each other on the internet before entering into a relationship. Bianca’s family described Brandon as having been a “close family friend,” but alleged screenshots of conversations between the two revealed a disturbing tension.

Judging from her social media presence, Bianca seems to have been what is colloquially known as an “e-girl”: a woman who extensively documents her daily life online for attention, and consequently has a dedicated online following of men. These followers are often “incels,” men who see themselves as involuntarily celibate and thus orbit around these online personalities out of desperation. Power dynamics between the two groups are multifaceted. Often, e-girls take pleasure in manipulating hordes of men, while incels may become frustrated by their relative unimportance and lash back at women. These men often frame their anger as a righteous rejection of the bad hand they think they’ve been dealt by society. The manipulation was evident when Bianca seemingly boasted about her sexual promiscuity to Brandon, and the frustration was present in the social media posts that Brandon allegedly made before and after her death, asking first if he would be redeemed and then apologizing to Bianca’s corpse. After allegedly killing Bianca, Brandon tried to stab his own throat, taking a photo of himself covered in blood for the world to see. He survived his possible suicide attempt and was detained by local authorities. 

Publications have attempted to frame the slaying as born out of male frustration. There is surely a kernel of truth to this, but it is an insufficient explanation for why a man would murder a woman he claims to have loved. Contrary to the beliefs expressed on genuinely misogynistic forums on the internet, no one, including Bianca, deserves to be slain for supposedly treading down an inane and dangerous path with her digital footprint. So while taking the half-truth of Brandon’s frustration as a cause of the killing into account, it would be beneficial to recognize the root of internet-inspired violence.

I increasingly find myself pondering the philosophy of the internet, and especially how it alters human relationships. I am not a neo-Luddite — I recognize all the good that the internet has brought to society. The level of connectedness an average American possesses is historically unprecedented, and the amount of information available to a student like me grows every single day. Going down a rabbit hole on Wikipedia is one of my favorite pastimes, for one can learn so much by chance and with relative ease. It is a great time to be an ambitious youth, for the world is changing before our very eyes.

Yet the internet has also caused a sinister darkness to take hold in our daily lives: cultural rot. The internet has, perhaps due to its ease of access and seeming anonymity, enabled many to act on their crudest desires as if there are no real-world consequences. Belle Delphine, the quintessential e-girl, has sold water in which she bathed for outrageous profit. Pornography, with its degradation of women, has proliferated to the point where its social consequences are blatant. Most shockingly, photos and videos of genuine killings and deaths have become so common that many of us are only momentarily taken aback by such violent images. We have become desensitized — numbed by a hedonistic outlook and slaves to ephemeral desires. Too many people accept the Bianca/Brandon dynamic as normal while condemning only its boiling over. We have forgotten how to question the internet because we have allowed it to take such a great hold over our lives.

It is difficult, but not impossible, to reject the internet and live an “analog” or non-digital life. Increasingly, however, that way of life is construed as being for antiquarian professors and out-of-touch lawyers. What, then, can we do as a society to counter the looming force of the internet’s cultural rot? The answer is simple: we must inculcate a sense of virtue within the digital paradigm. While any definition of virtue might suffice in pushing back against societal degradation, the Aristotelian notion of moderation as the ideal is most serviceable here. While a curriculum may not yet be well-defined, proper digital citizenship should be thoroughly taught to the next generation of internet users, so that the internet is a tool and not a danger. Without constraining free will, heavy, unhealthy social media should be disincentivized. In particular, we should aim to curb real-life validation which is dependent on social media. Interpersonal relationships should be recognized as more than just a streak on Snapchat. Most importantly, however, everyone who uses the internet must recognize its destructive potential, so that Bianca’s death may be a lesson to us all.

Poland: Its Transformation from Communism to Capitalism

This past summer I studied at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland. It was founded in 1364 by King Casimir III and is the oldest university in Poland, the second oldest in Central Europe, and one of the oldest surviving universities in the world. But as soon as I arrived at my dormitory, a firm sense of consternation took hold of me. The dormitory was a Soviet bloc-style building that had been converted into a hotel, affectionately dubbed “Piast” after an important dynasty in Poland’s history. Despair reigned in the building. Its concrete prevented WiFi from reaching past the lobby, the laundry machines and ovens did not work, and the concierge could offer little to improve the situation. The dining service was extremely limited and lackluster, and the Biedronka (convenience mart) next to the hotel was underwhelming. I immediately realized that I was in the middle of a post-Soviet experience, witnessing some lingering effects of the communist ideology.

The dormitory was a far cry, however, from Kraków’s Stare Miasto (Old Town). There I was filled with awe. Gothic architecture, enthusiastic street performers, and an abundant selection of pubs and restaurants made Kraków proper feel lively and welcoming. A couple of streets over, Jagiellonian University’s brick buildings, some of which have existed for centuries, stood as a testament to traditional Polish culture. The laughter of young adults filled the air wherever I went, and a preponderance of stores catered to one’s every need. The sights, sounds, and smells of Kraków almost made me forget the horrors that Poland experienced during the twentieth century.

The dichotomy between these two areas of Kraków highlights a tension in Polish society: the reconciliation of a communist past with a capitalist future. Communism has undoubtedly left an indelible mark on Poland, and many Poles view their country as the foremost victim of modernity, due to their country’s experiences of Soviet rule, Nazi rule, and the destruction of World War II. The cheap concrete apartment buildings built during the more than four decades of communist rule dot the city’s outskirts. The interiors are often painted bright colors, or plastered with tacky wallpaper, in an attempt to humanize the monolithic and inorganic structures. As a Westerner, I found these buildings both an affront to my sense of beauty and a reminder of the damage that communism did to whatever it touched. One needs only to look to Nowa Huta, a district of Kraków that was largely made into a Socialist Realist architectural dystopia, to recognize how devoid of humanity certain ideologies can be, and how awe-inspiring traditional Polish culture really is.

Poland has certainly been making strides in eschewing its dark past and emerging as a strong force in Europe. Historically it has been a regional power, but the past 20 years have brought a global level of development and sophistication, especially in economic terms. Many eateries in Kraków often put up signs saying they have run out of food halfway through lunch time. While this may suggest a problem of a Soviet-style planned economy, it is also indicative of a demand that continuously outpaces supply. Poland is growing on all fronts, and anyone with the ability to seize this opportunity benefits from its free-market policies. Its strong sense of nationalism also drives forward an international competitiveness.

This pride in the nation is rooted in both Poland’s historic achievements and its successful rejection of communism, most notably through the Solidarność (Solidarity) movement. This love of country is not merely latent in Poland; it is active and clearly visible. I was present in the Stare Miasto on August 1 at 5 p.m., when hundreds of Poles gathered in silence as the most patriotic among them popped red flares and played a siren in commemoration of the start of the doomed 1944 Warsaw Uprising against the occupying Germans. This sight profoundly affected me as I realized how devoted people could be to their country.

At the same time, many Poles share the fear that too much political correctness has been imported from the West, both through foreign students at universities and through Poland’s increased involvement in European affairs and/or increased European Union involvement in Poland’s (and other nations’) affairs. Poland is wary of any possible regression toward any policy that seems related to communism. This tendency has elicited many unfair judgments by people in the West, but has also led to a strengthening of Polish-American relations. Many Poles seem to love President Trump, primarily for his rejection of socialism, and they speak ill of him only when they hear the English word “Russia” uttered alongside his name.

Regardless, Poland’s new post-communist future appears to be much more promising than its experience under Soviet “leadership.” One day, I will return to the country and witness again its stunning transformation from communism to freedom and democracy. Until then, I offer a toast to Poland and its people: Na zdrowie!