A fable of Jean de La Fontaine has the title: “The frog that
wished to be as big as the ox.” It is the story of a toad that so badly wanted
to be as big as an ox; it inflated itself to swell to a larger size but cracked
before it got there. The lesson that La Fontaine conveys is that some people
wish so hard to look bigger than they are, they end up hurting themselves
trying to be what they are not.
And that's exactly what can be said about little Matthew
Continetti who wrote: “Bernie Sanders Smears Israel,” an article that was
published on April 9, 2016 in National Review Online. Mindful of the reality
that nothing he and those like him can say about the Middle
East , is worth responding to more than has been done already, we
dismiss the title of the article and all the passages that pertain to foreign
policy. Instead, we concentrate on what else Continetti is trying to say or
accomplish with that presentation.
He says the following in the opening paragraph: “Sanders's
interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News revealed a
candidate [who] couldn't even explain how his signature policy – breaking up
the big banks – would work. His campaign might as well have sent Larry David in
his place. The comic is better informed”.
As a matter of fact, Larry David never impersonated Bernie
Sanders talking about breaking up banks that are too big to fail. His most
celebrated sketch said something about underwear that's left to dry on the
radiator. Thus, we must conclude from all this that little Matthew is confusing
the checkbook of the bank his mamma gave him with the diaper his mamma forgot
to tell him not to take to the bank or ask the cashier to add to his deposits.
And this is not all that the little boy has said in his
opening paragraph. He also said that Sanders could not explain how he would
break up the big banks. This being the case, we do two things.
First, we go through the boy's article to see if he
managed to explain what he claims Sanders could not explain. Alas, we find
nothing of the sort. So we raise an eyebrow and clear our throat.
Second, we go to the part of the Daily News interview
where the pertinent passage appears. Stripped of the unnecessary verbiage, we
see that the exchange between interviewer and interviewee went as follows:
DAILY NEWS: Switching to Wall Street, you said that your
treasury Department would be drawing up a too-big-to-fail list.
SANDERS: Yeah. These are the largest financial
institutions in the world...
DAILY NEWS: How do you go about doing that?
SANDERS: Having legislation passed, or giving the
authority to the secretary of treasury to determine that these banks are a
danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.
DAILY NEWS: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that
authority?
SANDERS: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think
the administration can have it.
We analyze that passage. The editors interviewing Sanders
ask how he would go about breaking up the banks. He responds he would do it by
having legislation passed. So they ask if he thinks the Fed has the authority
to do it now (presumably with or without new legislation). And he responds that
he doesn't know but if not, it is something that can be arranged.
This is where professional journalists would have ended
this line of questioning. They would have because they would remember two
things. First, they would remember the litigation that followed the order to
breakup AT&T, and the rancor that lingered among the stakeholders for many
years after that.
The fact is that you never know if you have slam dunk
legislation to do something as big and complex as that. Thus, Sanders was wise
to say he did not know if the Fed had the authority now.
Second, professional journalists would have remembered
that when a President – in his capacity as commander in chief – decides to
alter the configuration of the military, he does not draw up the plan himself.
He gives the order and lets the specialists do the job. The same goes for
breaking up the big banks. The President will give the order, and teams of
specialists; Economists and accountants, lawyers and judges, clerks and friends
of the court will get busy.
Writing about this kind of subjects is so advanced, little
boys who have not learned the difference between a bank and a diaper should
first acquire the knowledge and the experience before trying to inflate
themselves.