Vermont Democratic-Socalist Sen. Bernie Sanders got into a rather ugly back-and-forth with President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Treasury Secretary. And the war of words left Sanders livid. I mean like really, really mad. The reason? During the exchange, the nominee completely obliterated the false definition of “oligarchy” that the Vermont senator has been clinging to for a long time.
It all started from Biden’s farewell address delivered earlier this week. You probably didn’t watch it. I didn’t either. I’ve had enough of Biden over the last four years. Done with him. Done with his administration. Let’s move on, you know? However, during his speech, Biden claimed that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.”
“We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before,” Biden went on to say, according to a White House transcript of the address.
Check out further details via The Western Journal:
Your definition of oligarchy may differ. For instance, moving on to what he called a “tech-industrial complex” (at least he acknowledged he was borrowing from Dwight Eisenhower, unlike his prior plagiarism of Neil Kinnock and others), he claimed this included social media platforms “giving up on fact-checking.” You know, so his administration can’t pressure them into adopting their version of reality by yelling and screaming at Meta employees; that kind of tech-industrial complex. If government isn’t part of the equation, it’s a no-go for the Democrats.
But I digress. On the day after Wednesday night’s address, Sen. Sanders, a Vermont independent socialist, used the “oligarchy” line from Biden’s speech as an opening to attack Treasury secretary nominee Scott Bessent, a hedge fund manager, during his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee.
Regarding Biden’s remarks, Sanders said that “I agree with” the president, mentioning several “oligarchs” he was concerned with: Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, and Mark Zuckerberg.
Bessent responded, “Do you?”
The nominee then pointed out the names he dropped “all made the money themselves,” going on to add, “Mr. Musk came to the country as an immigrant.” Aren’t Democrats all-in on immigration? Even the illegal kind? Or do you have to immigrant from a specific country in order to be politically expedient for the party?
“Sanders went on to say that he wasn’t concerned about how they made their money — somewhat critical in the definition of an oligarch, it’s worth noting — but the fact that they had money,” the report explained.
“What Biden said last night is ‘we’re moving toward an oligarchy.’ I’m asking you that question,” Sanders stated. “Do you think — forget how they made their money — do you think that when so few people have so much wealth and so much economic and political power, that that is an oligarchic form of society?”
Bessent then noted that the individuals who are named as being oligarchs are all individuals with whom the left disagrees. The guys playing for the other team.
“Well, I would note that the President Biden gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to two people who I think would qualify for his oligarchs,” Bessent responded.
.@SenSanders: "What Biden said last night is we're moving towards an oligarchy. I'm asking you that question…forget how they made that money."
Scott Bessent: "President Biden gave the presidential medal of freedom to two people who I think would qualify as his oligarchs." pic.twitter.com/cAu3tXb4YS
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 16, 2025
There were two specific individuals who were awarded the medal that Bessent was referring to: George Soros and David Rubenstein.
Sanders was not at all pleased with that response. Truth really does hurt, doesn’t it? It sure wounded Bernie.
Sanders, unhappy about this, said that his question was “not a condemnation of any one individual” (of course it wasn’t; he named three! duh) and that he was more concerned with an “oligarchic form of society.” Of course, if Sanders was really concerned with “a small number of billionaires in both political parties” making sizable contributions into presidential and congressional campaigns, as he said earlier in the question, the easiest place to start would be with the Soroses and Rubensteins of the political world — the ones he has control over. But those are the good oligarchs! He’s concerned with the bad ones, although he didn’t say it quite that way.
Merriam-Webster, usually helpful in these matters, lists two key definitions for “oligarchy.” The first: “government by the few.” That naturally includes Sanders and the Democrat-industrial complex, which has no problem getting money from billionaires. Pointing out this very salient fact — or the fact that Sanders himself is a fat-cat by his own socialistic standards — apparently upsets him greatly.
The second dictionary definition of the term says that oligarchy is a “government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.” That’s not what the president meant in his speech. He was just taking an opportunity to slap an unfavorable label on his political enemies and nothing more.
Bottom line: These two career politicians are big mad that the American people have had enough of their garbage and are working to not only kick them to the curb but destroy their philosophy as well.
We’re so back, baby.
"*" indicates required fields
