Presidential candidate Sen. Sanders, People of color, and his 'Paternalistic' appeal.

       Normally, one would expect any culture to hold certain beliefs or understandings as settled, but the increasing factionalism, or polorization in our politics insist I preface my 'argument' with the clearly defined and precise term:

     Paternalism; Def.:  n.
                   1."feeling of a father for his children," 1851;"government as by a father over his children,"  1866,   
 
      2. [  ] "... governing [   ] in the manner of a father dealing benevolently and often intrusively with his children.
     
     [  a. The underlieing rational being the myth of racial or cultural  superiority whose object is to benefit the inferior class by rule/law or by absorbtion;

     b.  Usually associated with autocratic rule. ]    


     The question of whether Sen. Sander's appeal to 'People of Color' is paternalistic is the object of the argument.

        'Paternalism' disparages most social programs today, but the founders strategy in dissolving power within descreet, contending institutions would allow the people to resist the emergence of such an autocratic form. Laying the charge of "Paternalism" to all social programs misconceives the difference between liberty as an individual or autonomous value and democratic/republican governance to effect the common good. 

     The difference in paternalistic laws can be more readily percieved by comparing the instance of seat-belt laws with the Obama Care mandates. When I refuse to wear a seat-belt, I risk injury to myself. By comparison, when I make myself susceptible to contagious, pathogenic diseases, I threaten injury to the community.

The conclusion:

        Seatbelt laws are paternalistic; violative of personal liberty, but national health care laws are not.

     With this clarification we can ask whether Sen. Sander's proposals would result in more restrictions on personal liberties, ( the good of the 'inferior-classes' notwithstanding ).

       The othe side of this question is the object of the "appeal" itself; I.e.; The "people of color". Although this falls outside of my argument, being a "person of color" myself, and a supporter of the Sanders campaign also, my personal view, I think, is relevent, and should be considered. 

      My first sense upon seeing the article was one of insult, because of the implication that "people of color" must be, at least, political neophytes, or at best, facile in their understanding of good republican governence. My superficial suspicion tells me "The Union" will survive, even with the disappearance of the "colorless class".  

      In fact, Sen. Sanders appeal gives voice to a grave and imminent threat to our democracy. We find ourselves susceptible to a social contagion; a pathogenic disease called: "Oligarchy". Many senators and representatives today are creatures at al. of the wealthy organisations that have purchased their seats. As a result, we have two forms of representation now, but the men responsible for this usurpation are not being prosecuted for treason!

    Thereto, I offer the following:

     The only significant color in America today is Green. We can't imagine our lives without it-  without Money!

      If 'The Peoples Sovereignty' and 'Capitalism' ( ... contending institutions? ), cannot coalesce or even coexist, we'll have to give Karl Marx' theories a second look, if only for the hope of The Republic.                                                                                                                                                                     -  R.W. 0717

 "When the contest is between Money and Money, Money always wins."   - R. Warlov  -0717