CNN's Elitist Response to Bernie Sanders' Announcement

Yesterday I blogged Bernie Sanders' announcement on my sister blog, Democratic Campaign Watch.  Today, I take a moment to look over one media outlet's response to the Sanders declaration.  Here's what CNN had to say:

The firebrand Vermont Senator vowed Tuesday to wrest back America from the hands of billionaires, formally launching a populist grass roots White House bid that threatens to tug Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton towards the liberal left.

Is this an example of elitist language?  Let's take a look.  First the word "firebrand."  Here's the definition of "firebrand,"  according to Merriam-Webster on line:

 one that creates unrest or strife (as in aggressively promoting a cause) : agitator  .

Perhaps this is a description Senator Sanders would embrace.  However, is it accurate?  Is Senator Sanders trying to stir up unrest or strife?  Is he an "agitator"?  First, unrest  means:

a disturbed or uneasy state :  turmoil  .

Is a United States Senator trying to create turmoil?  Is he an agitator?  If so, wouldn't that be cause for serious concern?  Common sense says he is not any of these things.

On the other hand, Mr. Sanders has used the word "revolution" in his announcement.  Now there are violent revolutions and revolutions which are non-violent.  So is Mr. Sanders talking about a revolution involving civil unrest?  Or is talking about, as he himself said, going door-to-door engaging voters in conversation about the state of the country?  The latter hardly seems like civil unrest.  Thus, CNN is over-reaching.

What about the word "populist"?   Is that such a bad word?  Again, the dictionary:

a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people  .

Would anyone in his right mind say he is not a populist under this definition?  Even Fox News would be called a populist outfit under this definition.  So the use of the word "populist" by CNN is an attempt to turn a perfectly good word into a pejorative.  

And, last, is Bernie Sanders physically abusing Hillary Clinton by tugging on her?   Yes, I'm having a bit of fun here.  We can take "tug" as a metaphor or a euphemism for "exerting force".  Personally, I don't see the metaphor, but it is in line with normal reportorial jargon over the years when it comes to politics.

Of more importance is whether Bernie Sanders is doing the right thing.  This needs to be judged in two ways.  First, is he right on principle?  I posit that he most assuredly is.  Second, is he right in terms of political strategy?  It seems to me he is showing a degree of brilliance in running within the Democratic Party rather than outside it.  Whether this will split the Democratic Party is another matter.  I have my fears about an unhealthy effect.  

Finally, can an avowed "independent democratic socialist" be elected President?  Let's hope so!  Is Bernie Sanders that man?  He has a ways to go to convince people that he is.  After all, actually being President is a big job.  Most citizens in and out of the parties are not up to it.  

So, we will have to see how things develop.  For now, since Sen. Sanders has mentioned the role of the media, it seemed useful to examine the immediate response of one major media outlet to his announcement of yesterday.  

(c) 2015 by The Musical Patriot