Los Angeles Times - 04.03.2020

LATIMES.COM/OPINION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2020A

OP-ED

W

hen Bernie
Sanderswas ly-
ing in a Las Vegas
hospital after a
heart attack last
October, I was certain his cam-
paign was dead. Health-wise,
Sanders was already pushing his
luck by bidding to become the old-
est person to be elected president.
Surely no voter would take a risk on
a 78-year-old candidate with two
stents in his heart.
Obviously, I was wrong.
In a “Death and Immortality”
course I teach at Boston University,
one of my main objectives is to con-
vince my students that they are go-
ing to die. During World War I, Sig-
mund Freud scratched his head
while watching young men march
confidently off to war. Half of their
battalions were fated to come back
in body bags, but each was con-
vinced that death was for the other
guys. “In the unconscious,” Freud
wrote, “every one of us is convinced
of his own immortality.”
We are apparently equally con-
vinced of the immortality of our be-
loved politicians: Humans die;
Bernie is a human; but Bernie will
never die.
As the prospects of the Demo-
cratic candidates have been rising
and falling like the lines on an EKG,
I’ve become obsessed with the ac-
tuarial odds of Sanders dying. I
called Hal Tepfer, the director of
BU’s master’s degree program in
actuarial science, who pointed me
to the Social Security Administra-
tion’s mortality tables: The
chances of a man of 78 (Sanders’
age) dying within a year are 4.8%.
But what about over a presi-
dential term? Sanders will be 79 on
Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2021. His
chances of dying during the follow-
ing four years are 23%. They rise to
48% if you are hoping for a second
Sanders term, and that’s not fac-
toring in a history of heart attacks.
According to Tepfer, any repu-
table insurance company consid-

ering writing a life insurance policy

is going to demand complete medi-

cal records. Sanders has been ada-

mant that he will not provide such

a history. That would immediately

disqualify him for life insurance.

But somehow Sanders’ Trumpish

secrecy does not disqualify him as

a front-runner for the Democratic

presidential nomination.

All these calculations are for

naught, of course, if Bernie is the

god/man many of his devotees

imagine him to be. However, at

least according to a 2018 study of

heart attack victims published in

the Journal of the American Heart

Assn., Bernie is not likely to live for-

ever. That study found that the me-

dian life expectancy for Americans

who had a heart attack at 75 or old-

er was just 3.1 years. Aaron Eisman,

a MD/PhD student in biomedical

informatics at Brown University,

went through the findings with me:

The chances of an average man of

Sanders’ age living for a year past

the date of his heart attack (Oct. 1,

2019, in Bernie’s case) are roughly 1

in 4. The chances he would survive

over a four-year term in office are

roughly 1 in 3.

But the nightmare scenario for

Never Trumpers, including me, is

the death (or incapacitation) of

the Democratic presidential nomi-

nee between the Democratic Na-

tional Convention, July 13-16 in Mil-

waukee, and election day, on Nov. 3.

What happens then? And what

does our nation’s Tweeter in Chief

do to muddy the waters and exploit

the chaos?

The odds of this scenario are,

admittedly, low. Assuming Sand-

ers gets the nomination and as-

suming he is like an average heart

attack victim in the AHA Journal

study, the odds of him dying be-

tween winning the nomination and

Nov. 3 are slim, about a 1 in 40

chance. That is not a big chance

but, given the stakes, it’s too big for

me. (The Kentucky Derby winners

in 2009 and 2019 went off at longer

odds.)

Of course, Sanders is not the

only Democratic candidate who

has been angling to become a West

Wing octogenarian. Bloomberg is

Bernie’s age (78) and Biden is just

one year younger (77), so according

to the Social Security Administra-

tion’s mortality tables, they have a

4% to 5% chance of dying within a

year. Elizabeth Warren is 70, but

because she is a woman, her

chances of death during that time

frame are well under 2%. What dis-

tinguishes Bernie from the rest of

the potentially dead men running

(and sharply increases his chance

of death) is his heart attack his-

tory.

Behavioral psychologists tell us

that human beings prefer not to

think probabilistically. When con-

fronted with 20:1 odds that a septu-

agenarian we love will die in the

next year, we convince ourselves

that our beloved is one of the 19.

When confronted with the fact that

our favorite presidential candidate

has about a 1-in-4 chance of dying

within a year of his heart attack, we

vote for him anyway: Death is for

other people.

I like Bernie. I would be de-

lighted to have him as my presi-

dent. But I do think prob-

abilistically and I simply don’t be-

lieve he is immortal. For those of us

who are desperate to hear some

modern-day Gerald Ford declare,

“Our long national nightmare is

over,” this primary season just isn’t

a time to roll the dice.

Let Republicans take the risks.

Let them tempt death by nominat-

ing — again — a 70-something man

of dubious health who has refused

to release his medical records.

There are all sorts of glass ceilings

that could be broken in this presi-

dential election year. Here’s to hop-

ing that electing the oldest presi-

dent ever is not among them.

Stephen Protherois a Boston

University religion professor and

author of the forthcoming

“Religion Matters: An

Introduction to the World’s

Religions.”

DEMOCRATICpresidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders after he cast his vote in his state’s
primary election on Super Tuesday. Sanders won the Vermont election.

Chip SomodevillaGetty Images

Bernie Sanders has

an actuarial problem

What sets the 78-year-old apart? His heart attack history.

By Stephen Prothero

Looks likePresi-

dent Trump was

right to be scared

of Joe Biden.

I didn’t think

the former vice

president could

pull it off, espe-

cially after his weak showings in

Iowa, New Hampshire and Ne-

vada.

When I saw Biden in Iowa last

month, he didn’t inspire confi-

dence. He was shouty and kept

referring to a written text, which

seemed bizarre for a guy with

more than half a century of politi-

cal experience.

But I underestimated his ap-

peal to voters, especially black

voters, thanks to the enduring

power of his relationship with

President Obama. Without the

support of African Americans,

there will be no Democratic presi-

dent in 2021.

And on Saturday, after a deci-

sive win in South Carolina, he was

his best self: passionate, on point,

sensitive, kind.

Biden is like an old robe you

can slip into — not new or exciting,

but comfortable at a time when

many of us could use a little com-

fort.

On Tuesday, he racked up win

after win: In Virginia, Minnesota,

Massachusetts, North Carolina,

Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee.

He won in Oklahoma where, re-

porters noted, he spent a mere

$60,000.

He by no means has a lock on

the nomination, with Bernie

Sanders still gaining delegates

and maintaining his core of loyal

supporters. But Biden has done

much to reassure voters in recent

days that, if he becomes the

Democratic presidential nominee,

the party will be in good hands.

Come November, Democratic

voters and disaffected Republi-

cans won’t give a fig about the

questionable business practices of

his son. Yes, Republicans will

hammer away at Hunter Biden’s

association with a Ukrainian oil

company, but Hunter’s not run-

ning for president.

And let’s not forget: President

Trump’s children are the most

blatant beneficiaries of nepotism

in American history. Their father

— not Hunter Biden — was the

one who was charged with high

crimes and misdemeanors over

dealings with Ukraine.

Sanders supporters were

hoping that Super Tuesday would

provide a coronation of their fa-

vorite democratic socialist, but

that does not appear to have

happened. Yes, he won California,

drawing young voters and Latino

voters as expected. But Super

Tuesday’s mixed results signal

that he and Biden are going to

have to fight it out, and perhaps

fight it out some more after that,

all the way to the convention.

Biden is surely more palatable

to the Democratic establishment,

but Sanders’ energizing effect on

younger voters and Latino voters

cannot be denied.

I keep hearing the same tired

criticism of Sanders from moder-

ate Democrats: He’s been in Con-

gress for a bajillion years (29 actu-

ally), but has authored little legis-

lation. This is a specious assess-

ment; Sanders has sponsored

some 500 amendments, many of

which have become law.

In any case, I would submit

that Sanders’ most important

contribution to American life is

that he has almost single-hand-

edly forced the Democratic party

leftward. He has never, not once,

forsaken his deeply held beliefs

that income inequality is an

American scourge, that tax breaks

for the rich come at the expense of

the poor and middle class, that the

failures of our healthcare system

are shameful, and that students

should not bear lifelong debt for

their educations.

His intransigence alone is his

crowning achievement. Would

Biden, who helped make it almost

impossible for students to dis-

charge college debt, have even

mentioned the issue at his “vic-

tory” speech in California on Tues-

day night had Sanders not pushed

him in that direction?

As for the candidates who

appear to be the also-rans of the

Super Tuesday field: I’m sad that

Elizabeth Warren’s star has

dimmed. She is such a decent

human being, such a tenacious

fighter for economic policies that

favor the working and middle

classes. When she needed to be

harsh on the debate stage — as

she was against Michael

Bloomberg — she was devas-

tating. When the moment called

for conciliation, she was brilliant.

She was organized, well-funded

and seemed to have moved past

the early stumbles over her herit-

age. Why did she never catch fire?

Billionaire Michael

Bloomberg’s likely demise is

hardly a tragedy for Democrats.

Yes, he is a plutocrat with a prog-

ressive streak. And sure, it would

have been fun to watch him bait

Trump. (In Nevada, Bloomberg

trolled Trump with billboards:

“Donald Trump went broke run-

ning a casino.”) But the only rea-

son for his candidacy was Biden’s

perceived weakness. Now that

Biden has been eating his Wheat-

ies, there’s no room for the former

New York mayor.

Here’s the thing: I often joke

that I’d vote for a ham sandwich if

that’s what the Democrats nomi-

nated, because frankly, an inert

object would do less damage to

our nation and our standing in the

world than the current White

House occupant has already done.

Did you watch Trump’s loopy,

incoherent news conference about

the coronavirus? At least sand-

wiches can’t talk.

Now that the field has narrow-

ed to two candidates, Democrats

will have to make the difficult

choice about who has the best

chance to beat Trump.

My head says Biden, but my

heart says Bernie.

I can live with either one.

@AbcarianLAT

It’s Bernie vs.

Biden. Let the

slugfest begin

ROBIN ABCARIAN

Sanders excites many

voters, Biden soothes.

Democrats still have a

difficult choice to make.

My head says Biden,

but my heart says

Bernie. I can live

with either one.

I

s “peace in ourtime” in Af-
ghanistan at hand? President
Trump thinks so. He de-
scribed the agreement signed
Saturday by an American di-
plomat and a Taliban official as
providing “a powerful path forward
to end the war in Afghanistan and
bring our troops home.” We must
hope that he is correct.
Yet the prospective end of the
longest war in U.S. history does not
find Americans dancing in the
streets. With the spread of the co-
ronavirus and the ongoing drama
of the Democratic primaries, Af-
ghanistan figures at best as an
afterthought in news media and
the public mind. Besides, the na-

tion has long since grown weary of

armed interventions that drag on

and on as if on autopilot. No Get-

tysburg, no D-day — just sporadic

reports of bombs dropped and

people killed.

Even so, while the peace plan

may not prompt Americans to cel-

ebrate, it ought to provide an occa-

sion for sober reflection. At least

for now, our instinctive urge to

move on, to forget, can wait.

After nearly 20 years, the United

States has accomplished exceed-

ingly little in Afghanistan. The

truth is, in this faraway Central

Asian country, we have sustained a

major defeat. The deal signed over

the weekend, which in the details

began fraying almost immediately,

amounts to an admission of failure.

The Trump administration’s desire

to call it quits has overridden what

justified a U.S. military presence in

Afghanistan in the first place.

Here are the facts. Despite the

loss of more than 6,000 American

dead and the expenditure of

roughly a trillion dollars, U.S.

forces have never come close to de-

feating the Afghan Taliban. In-

deed, government figures put the

enemy-initiated attacks in the last

quarter of 2019 at a nine-year high.

Programs aimed at building

Afghan military and police forces

able to provide security have also

failed. So too have efforts to install

in Kabul a unified government that

commands the support of the

Afghan people. There are today

two rival claimants to the Afghan

presidency. As for the $9 billion in

U.S. taxpayer money expended to

reduce the cultivation of opium,

that effort has yielded essentially

nothing, as a detailed report in the

Washington Post made clear in De-

cember. Afghanistan today report-

edly produces more than 90% of

the world’s opium supply. And

efforts to curb rampant corruption

have come nowhere close to

success, with Transparency

International ranking Afghanistan

among the world’s most corrupt

nations.

Each of these figured as major

U.S. policy objectives. None has re-

sulted in mission accomplishment.

Only with regard to the education

of girls — an estimated 3.5 million

are today attending Afghan

schools — can U.S. efforts be said

to have achieved even modest suc-

cess, with political dysfunction and

inadequate security putting even

that modest achievement at risk.

But wait, some will say: Since

U.S. forces arrived in Afghanistan

more than 18 years ago the United

States has not experienced a recur-

rence of 9/11. But this assumes a

nonexistent causal relationship.

Taliban fighters have not been

waging a global jihad targeting the

United States. Their purpose re-

mains what it was when Afghan

mujahideen resisted Soviet occu-

pation in the 1980s: They are deter-

mined to oust foreign occupying

forces. If the just announced peace

deal holds at all, and Trump with-

draws U.S. troops as he has repeat-

edly vowed to do, the Taliban will

have achieved precisely what they

have long fought for. That’s victory.

The central lesson for the U.S. in

this long and futile conflict, com-

pounded by our experience in the

Iraq war, is plain: The proper mis-

sion of the U.S. military is to deter

and to defend — a statement that

ought to be inscribed over the main

entrance to the Pentagon, if not

added to the oath of office taken by

the commander in chief.

Never again should it be the

purpose of American forces to

overthrow regimes in distant lands

with vague expectations of being

able to install a political order more

to our liking. That way lies only

more “endless wars.”

If senior U.S. national security

officials can absorb that lesson,

then perhaps the war in Af-

ghanistan will not have been a

complete waste. Alas, that as-

sumes a capacity for learning that

in Washington is not much in evi-

dence.

Andrew Bacevichis a

contributing writer to Opinion.

He is president of the Quincy

Institute for Responsible

Statecraft and author of “The

Age of Illusions: How America

Squandered Its Cold War Victory.”

Let’s face it: We were defeated in Afghanistan

The U.S. has accomplished

little in nearly 20 years.

The peace deal is an

admission of failure.

By Andrew Bacevich