Ralph Nader Realizes the Genius Plan of Bernie Sanders
Ralph Nader has long been a critic of Bernie Sanders since April of last year. He has always said that Bernie Sanders, by running in the (un)Democratic Party AND promising to endorse the nominee at the end, he is setting up millions of people, the young especially, for a major disappointment. The despair may be so overwhelming they may get disengaged from politics once again. You don't build movements, or a political revolution as Bernie likes to call it, during an election year, Nader preaches.
However, Nader seems to have had a change of heart. He now attests that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is "brilliant" and may be a good thing. When Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, he didn't talk about Hillary Clinton or her personal or leadership qualities or even what she has done in the past. Instead, he listed all the policies that Clinton and the Democrats agreed to such as a $15 min wage, public option for healthcare, free tuition at public colleges for those who make less than $125,000, and instituting a modern day Glass-Steagall. However, Bernie Sanders knows, no matter how much public support for these policies there is, Hillary Clinton cannot absolutely pass any of these reforms because they go against the very people who have led her from being a First Lady to a senator of a large state to Secretary of State to the office of the most powerful person in the world. Clinton has received a total of $3 billion over 40 years from Wall Street and other special interests. To enact these reforms would be to go against these very same people who have given her luxury and power.
This is why Ralph Nader called Bernie's endorsement speech "brilliant", saying that “he set her up for political betrayal, which would allow him to enlarge his civic mobilization movement after the election and after she takes office,” Nader told Ramos. “So I think it’s a very astute endorsement.”
All the people of who supported Clinton during the primaries and general election will realize that her and the Democratic Party work for those at the top and lead many people looking for different options. This can be our best chance to build an independent left party that where our revolution can take root.
In Greece, after the centre-left party New Democracy ignored campaign promises and passed deep cuts to social programs and tax hikes for the poor and middle class, voters became so angry that the progressive party Syriza, which used to capture only 4-5% of the vote, earned 30% of the vote in 2012 and in 2014 became the largest party in Greece. The same phenomenon occurred in Spain and South Korea and may very well occur in the US
By setting up Hillary Clinton and the Democrats for failure, Bernie Sanders may be doing the best thing ever for the Green Party.
Sources: http://fusion.net/story/324491/ralph-nader-jorge-ramos-bernie-endorsemen...
Comments
That is an interesting theory.
I'm not sure its right of course, but at this point that's my best hope. It isn't really just about Hillary Clinton. We need to change the feeling among the people of this country. We need them mobilized and angry. We need Congress filled with people who will vote to build up social security and pass a minimum wage.
I actually don't much care about their political party. I only care about the former.
So true! It's not about Hillary
Just as it's not about Bernie(but us). We're sick of all the politicians that do this stuff. It's just that she out-did them at it in a time when, we see what you're doing. If she could have tried to outdo Bernie, I think this would be a whole new ballgame. But as it stands, we're sexists because we've singled get out for doing all the corporatist anti-environment pro-war regime-change.. This is an incomplete thought so maybe someone can pick up where I left off, but yeah, maybe our best hope at this point...
Behind enemy lines
When you work behind enemy lines you don't have the luxury of flying your flag.
"Polls don't tell us how well a candidate is doing; Polls tell us how well the media is doing." ~ Me
And sometimes you get killed by your own people
I read a horrific story of a rich partisan in Italy who openly courted the Nazi leaders in order to funnel info into the resistance. At the end of the occupation, he was tortured in the village square, while one of the few people who knew what he had really done, and at what personal risk, desperately tried to push through the crowd to reach him in time to defend his actions to the people. In vain.
Double agent = double the risk n/t
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Good to see Nader come around...
I respect Nader and I think society owes him continued recognition for basically creating government instituted consumer protections, though they are continually being chiseled away at by the oligarchs.
Socialism is inevitable. It's just damnably difficult to get there.
I think I'll call my hard working, earnest, Republican brother and harangue him for awhile today. : )
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Correlation does not equal causation.
Ralph's a good prognosticator, and I agree that as the reality of Bernie's capture by the Hillary pod people sets in among Bernie supporters, their anger will manifest itself in an ever greater backlash against her campaign.
But whether Bernie truly meant for that to happen when he endorsed her seems a bit far fetched.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
but then in the end it's nor important if he meant it to happen
it's happening and that's what counts and we will see how much good comes out of it.
https://www.euronews.com/live
I agree.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Ralph slow on the uptake this time, but right nonetheless
It was BECAUSE Bernie was running on the Dem ticket that I decided to support him. I knew that a popular candidate like Bernie could only hurt the chances of the Dem nominee if he ran third-party. By staying within the party he demonstrated his lack of ego better than anything he could have said. It was an ethical move, not one for personal advantage on Bernie's part.
Ralph Nader ran as a third-party candidate in 2004 to show how insanely difficult it was for anyone to get on the ballot in all 50 states. That did not mean he thought he could actually WIN as a independent It meant that the first tier of a meaningful third-party challenge to the RepubliDems could be reached.
After one negotiates the barriers to the 50 states, then one must deal with various arcane party rules designed to keep people like Bernie and Ralph minimized. State, county, and precinct. The US Constitution left voting rules up to the states. This needs to be changed, and must be changed by a Constitutional Amendment.
BERNIE SANDERS - NOT FOR SALE
I have been waiting for this election my whole life, it turns out!
Please see my website www.olivialarosa.com for sassy political and social commentary
DKOS ID debocracy aka OliviaLaRosa
That's not going to happen.
The US Constitution can no longer be amended. It never scaled properly after 1900. It is thoroughly entrenched in the 21st century. And obsolete.
But it is a blessing that the election structure stands outside the Constitution, for the people alive today can exercise Generational Sovereignty without legal antiquities getting in the way. By writing clean laws for the times we live in, this generation can avoid the rivers of exploitation and corruption that run through the old constitution, with its 18th century sensibilities.
This generation can write election laws designed to strengthen and benefit the American people, and not their Overlords.
Constitutional Replacement will only come with Revolution
I agree with your sentiments that we need an upscaled new Constitution--but it cannot happen. At least through peaceful means. The power of the corporatists is too great to overcome even in reaching the above-proposed constitutional amendment. Look at how invincible the true powers that be are. They have foisted upon us the two most reprehensible presidential candidates put forward by both major parties at the same time. And we, then, are supposed to vote for the lesser of two evils--which one is that? Mussolini or Stalin? Unless the NewCongress movement gains traction, there will be NO significant change in the Status Quo.
I didn't suggest constitutional replacement, here.
I expressed relief that the constitution has no election or party language to amend or change. This can be done through simple legislation
It's interesting to note that the rest of the world updates their constitutions every 20 to 40 years. For them, it is not an act of war. It's an opportunity to form more perfect unions, in keeping with the times. I do agree that Our Corporate Overlords would never allow this in the US. The old Slave-Owner's Constitution that does not directly confer human rights upon the people, is ideally suited to a plantation-style economy, where people do not have a commonwealth and the nation's resources are privatized to the Plutocrats, who profit by selling them back to the people at top dollar prices.
The American people have never objected to this set-up before, assuming they can see it.
The US government has been a plutocratic-dominated system from the beginning. Citizens United simply made it more transparent. Family dynasties have always been part of government, too. For example, the right has not elected a President without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket since 1928.
There is no such thing, really, as a national election. All elections are controlled by individual states, each with more bizarre rules than the next. The people do not have an inherent right to vote in a "national" election. Such rights can be manipulated at any time for any reason by the state. Further, there have never been national guidelines for vote counting, and there are no national election observers to set standards.
The American people have never objected to this set-up before. Why now?
Constitutional Corporatocracy
Why now? Because thanks to Bernie and his movement, more people are aware of the massive corruption of our society. Many feel that the election
riggingprocess has been decidedly unfair, corrupt, robbing people of their sole power in this so-called Representative Democracy, the vote.The Electoral College system was set up with a well-disguised similarity to the English Parliament--so that when things got too sticky for the PTB, they had the equivalent of the British House of Lords, which could undo whatever the commoners wanted to do.
Even if there were no direct "rigging" of the votes
The states continuously marginalize or null the votes of vast swathes of demographics. They work tirelessly to deny the vote to as many as they can.
The people didn't complain.
But most important of all, when Reagan revoked the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 — Democracy ended abruptly in the US. Now, this was obvious.
But the people seemed to enjoy their brainwashing, and never complained while they mindlessly elected a steady flow of neocons and neoliberals.
They needed Bernie Sanders to tell them what they were seeing with their own eyes? There were many opportunities over the years when the veil was pulled back, but the people dissolved into puddles of denial. There were many authors and activists that have told them the truth, at least since the 1960s, but they were ignored or reviled.
But when Bernie walked the stations of the cross during the Primaries, the people could finally "see."
Similar things have happened, I suppose.
Many of his former followers are denouncing him now. I hope they don't hang him on a cross.
Sounds worse than it is
That line about "the right has not elected a President without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket since 1928" obscures the fact that the right did not elect ANY President between 1928 and 1952.
Nixon was not their lucky charm in 1960, and it took a perfect storm to get him in in 1968. Then he screwed himself out of office in 1973, and there was a short interlude of No Nixon, No Bush (1973-1980).
Since then it's been All Bush or All Clinton All the Time.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Meanwhile, the other edge to
Meanwhile, the other edge to that sword is that the Dems are using the endorsement as a propaganda tool, such as "He's with Her!!" and other nonsense. It right now plays into their corporatists' hands. they will try to use that leverage as long as they can.
So long, and thanks for all the fish