OUTBREAK: Cognitive Dissonance No Longer Contained to Just Hillary Supporters

Progressives may have a huge threat at our doorstep.

Insidiously, contradictorily (some might say) and despite people's best efforts, the Shillary endorsement by Bernie Sanders last week seems to have let loose an unexpected scourge: the Cognitive Dissonance virus, up until now contained to Shillary and Trump fans…seems to have escaped all quarantine efforts and is now taking out us Berners.

The initial reaction to 7/12's "unity" rally was, as expected, shock and dismay (as it should have been).

I have argued in my previous piece ("From Athens to Burlington", please give it a visit if you like) that while we had justification for surprise and utter despair, looking back - one can also see clearly the writing was already on the wall.

Now, so as not to make this essay too critical…I will say this: the most POSITIVE quality of Bernie Sanders Supporters, post-endorsement, is again shining through: the Never Say Die Mentality, the Fight 'til the End Spirit.

Very laudable - something to take Pride in.

However, within about 48 hours of Bernie's capitulation, a more threatening aspect of this quality began to appear on social media; first in the corners, then within a few days, full-blown everywhere.

An attrbute of Cognitive Dissonance:

Given a situation where one has faith in a candidate or cause…when one is then confronted with a Reality or Fact which clearly contradicts that Faith or Belief, one is either:

1) forced to re-orient/revise that Faith to take into account the new facts which have appeared….

2) discard the Fact or Reality as erroneous, in order to maintain their Faith and belief, unadulterated…

or

3) rationalize the Fact/Occurrence and create a new story, a new Premise, which makes the Reality 'fit in' with the previous/original Faith or Belief.

Now,

1) is a difficult one - it takes much work because it requires a re-evaluation and an admittance that the supporter was in err, or deceived, to a degree. If one manages to do so, they have in fact triumphed over the Dissonance.

2) is quite easy (particularly for Americans), as it requires the least effort and allows one to proceed with their day unfettered by niggling factual revelations…

3) is also a difficult one, for it is trying to reconcile two things which are not reconcilable. A "Shoe-horning" of inconvenient truths, so to speak.

It is the 3) which, in my observation, too many Berners have now fallen prey to.

Some Facts, just from my own observations:

On the Wolf Blitzer interview a few weeks ago, Bernie used the past-tense when describing his candidacy: "the reason I ran for President …" this may have gone unnoticed to many, but it was very telling in that it was clearly a portion of his interview which was not preconceived, pre-prepared. I find oftentimes the most telling comments are the ones where a Politician is just forced to reply, ad-lib. They are often the most forthright comments.

In that same interview, he also said that if DOJ had closed the case on EmailGate, Bernie too considered it closed.

Again, these are irrefutable: they were the spoken words of the former candidate himself. Words were not put into his mouth. MSM did not 'spin' his replies in a certain way.
(This even in the unedited, long version of the interviews).

His semantics of his endorsement on Tuesday in NH utilized wording which can hardly be considered ambiguous. He lauded his rival, and very much played up the 'success' of having made the (non-binding) Platform the "Most Progressive in History".

In summary, interviews of the past week with Bernie and remaining staff have made clear:

He is endorsing his former rival, he will be campaigning for her post-convention, he does consider EmailGate to be over, there will be no floor fight on TPP.

One would argue this is certainly enough for supporters to start moving their support to other, remaining candidates who align with their beliefs/morals/values. And many, if not most, have started this movement/leaning.

Interestingly, however, within 24 hours of the Endorsement, a number of themes and memes began showing up online:

1) FDR had endorsed a rival and had won a contested convention that same year

2) Bernie had no other 'choice' to endorse because Comey sealed off his last path; he had no more options, and therefore was 'forced' to, by the DNC/Shillary cabal

3) DNC rules clearly state that Bernie 'had to' endorse otherwise he (or his delegates…two sub-versions of the argument circulated ) would be de-credentialed ; or he would be disallowed to speak.

Fueled by these erroneous arguments...with a bit of lighter-fluid being added by 1) the statements issued by (what remains of) his campaign team: he endorsed, he didn't suspend or concede…. and 2) the Soundcloud file of his conference call w/ delegates, post-endoresment...

...too many Berners have managed to create a Premise by which his endorsement and capitulation becomes acceptable.

"He is playing a Game of Chess"

"He sacrificed Himself for the Movement"

"He is playing the LONG game"

"He is going to spring something BIG in Philly"

"He did everything he could considering his position and options remaining"

or some version/iteration of the above.

But in order for such conjecture to be...let's say...strong or valid...the underlying support for it must be pretty darn factual.

Snopes, thankfully, blew a hole in the interpretations being used to support this New Premise:

www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-fdr-and-contested-conventions

But now, Snopes (which had been a close friend of Progressives all thru 2016 - see NV Convention, for instance) seems to have suddenly lost a bit of resonance among some Progressives.

The argument that Bernie somehow had ZERO leverage to play, but simply was at the mercy of the Shillary cabal, post-Comey, is very, very specious. It reminds me very much of Classic, Democrat "Learned Helplessness" so aptly honed and perfected by the likes of Feinstein, Boxer, Reed, Daschle, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton1…oh, the list goes on...and on....

(For example...I, for one, might argue: the Guccifer2 DNC email leaks and ExitPollGate may have provided some substantial leverage in closed-door meetings...no ?)

The Souncloud file…after having listened to it a few times, might better be described as a "licking our wounds/how do we get something outta this ?" conversation, than a "group huddle, let's round up our troops for the final battle" sort of conversation.

The campaign statements ? Their purpose quite simple: it would be downright embarrassing to have bodies NOT show up in Philly. People are justified in asking "what exactly am I marching for NOW ?" So, the Bernie camp needs to get those people to Philly….still.

(BTW, I do NOT disparage the desire to get Delegates and protestors to Philly AT ALL ; I merely observe that the original intent and purpose of the March has now been significantly diluted and re-routed. This is alarming, because the Dem Party is quite good at Diluting momentum for significant change; and I see them doing so once again).

Thus there is an expectation here among many Berners: 7/12 was not a capitulation, not a betrayal, not an abandonment of the very Revolution which Bernie Sanders stoked, himself. It was just another brilliant chess move, the exact intended outcome of which has yet to become completely clear.

Wink-wink.

Nod-nod.

The virus seems to be spreading.

You see, it is this wink and nod which I find most baffling - at this stage of the game. For it was the wink-and-nod which we gave him all thru the Primaries. Which we hung onto.
His semantics, as again I argue in my previous "Athens essay" were intentionally chosen and ambiguous enough that they could have been taken as wily and revolutionary…OR taken as "plainspeak".

"I ain't sayin' anything MORE that what I'm sayin' ".

Arguably Bernie Sanders is a good public speaker, and better at this than most Politicians (not to minimize the weight of his words...just sayin'..)

Now, in July 2016, given the endorsement…given the fact that Bernie has clearly stated he will be supporting a Shillary candidacy; and that he is going to shift his focus to the highly dubious Rx of "progressivising" the Democratic Party (the same entity which throughout the past 25 years has revealed itself to have no desire for Progressives)…

in my opinion… Faith or Hope that something big will happen in Philly…the start of something game-changing, revolutionary ...really has no basis to back it up, beyond Faith and Hope itself.
Because all facts run contrary to that particular, prospective outcome.

My prediction:

His name will be placed in Nomination, there will be a floor vote, he will lose that floor vote (because despite the fact that the Dems really DO have only ONE solid, viable Presidential candidate…Shillary's recent (and familiar) poll plunge will NOT convince the rigged Superdels to abandon her).

So, Bernie will then be left with the 'unveiling' of his new 'Movement': a "Bottom Up" which intends on taking 'back' the Democratic Party for 'real, Progressive Democrats".

There will be much rah-rah, there may even be the blueprint for real infrastructure development. But be aware now: this Rx also very CLEARLY creates a Mechanism to KEEP Progressives INSIDE the very Party which has so betrayed, marginalized, and disenfranchised them (us).

I realize this is a HARD piece for Berners to read. So I will close by adding THIS: I do not begrudge you, or your Faith. I understand the argument "I am gonna stay with it, see how it plays out". That is commendable, as long as your expectations are tempered by the realities of what has transpired...and not grounded in misinterpretations and discredited information.

I WANT to be WRONG. I literally WANT people to come at me, post-Conv, and strafe me for my horrible and erroneous critique. I want the "I Told You So !" 's to engulf me.

I just don't think this how it's gonna play out. Once again, the facts and actual words uttered in the current situation contradict that sort of ending.

Thanks for reading. Comments always welcome.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

edg's picture

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

I like verbiage. Sorry Wink

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

than having poorly articulated, incompletely-reasoned and/or ambiguous responses. Im my thinking, such as it is, the purpose of an essay is for exposition of thoughts or themes so that there is a point of view expressed and enough material for the readership to make an informed opinion. Yes, there are exceptions to this thesis, but those should be both brief and telling. Were the majority of essays on c99 brief one or two paragraph efforts, I would be looking for another home of Progressive thought.

up
0 users have voted.
Alphalop's picture

would bother to take the time to tell everyone that they thought it was too long to read.

I personally found it to be of a decent length for the amount of thoughts it was trying to convey and it only took a couple minutes from start to finish.

The whole "TLDR" thing I always viewed as somewhat rude tbh.

up
0 users have voted.

"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me

edg's picture

Actually, I did read this overlong and convoluted piece. My ;tldr is merely an expression of dismay. The essayist could have said "Bernie sold us out. Wah!!!" in 5 words instead of the 1,656 words meandering dispiritedly through this essay.

Sanders ran as a Democrat deliberately. He always said he would not run as a 3rd party candidate. Sanders said he would support Clinton if she won the primary. He never said he would take his marbles and run as a 3rd party candidate if she won. Sanders always said it was about us, not about him. He never said he'd build a cult of personality and found his own political party.

If anyone didn't believe what he said, they have no one to blame but themself.

up
0 users have voted.

Maybe next time you can tell us why you disagreed with it, or just simply say you disagreed. This isn't the TOP.

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

Then you didnt do a particularly thorough job of soaking it in...

or...hey...

maybe I did a bad job of writing.

That may have been a small part of my message, but I HOPE there was at least THIS salient point I was trying to get across:

When momentum starts being digresseed and diluted by rationalization, false hope, and utter pure Faith in a single Figure come hell or high water....

That movement will just be consumed and absorbed. I fear that what we are observing now, is this.

the exact SAME qualities we all so criticized Hillary supporters of, with shaudenfreudian relish, over the past 6 months....is now exactly what many a Berner is beginning to exhibit now.

So it wasn't intended to be a Bernie Bashing at all...

Thanks for your comments. Perhaps you should read the piece again (if you can spare the Time, of course).

up
0 users have voted.

It's TL;DR, or too long; didn't read, which I had to look up because I've never seen it. Twitter, perhaps? I'm not on Twitter. And it is rude. The length was fine.

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

up
0 users have voted.
petral's picture

Bernie has always played the inside game (for 35 years, anyway), others have worked from outside. It doesn't matter whether you or I think that's good or not, when there is social change that is what happens.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

as he has basically capitulated to the very Establishment he claimed to have challenged.

If his endgame is seriously this "new movement", reform Dems stuff...it's like giving a flyswatter to a person being attacked by a swarm of bees.

again, I wanna be wrong, but....

up
0 users have voted.

But someone has to try.

up
0 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

lunachickie's picture

That is exactly right. Someone has to try.

A lot of what passes for "op-ed" on blogs often seems hellbent on convincing the rest of us that you should never actually try unless you are guaranteed to succeed. Which is just ridiculous...

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

I fear this "Putsch WITHIN the Dems" is NOT the right plan: this slow 'bottom-up nurturing' not the right tool...

My 2 cents.

up
0 users have voted.
martianexpatriate's picture

you feel betrayed. If you want to go the long way around and come up with reasons for terrible motivations you can find some. But Occam's razor suggests a more simpler explanation. It is in fact, one which he already gave to us before he gave the speech.

He considers Trump a terrible threat, and he'd rather have Hillary. He said that he was going to support the Democratic candidate and he kept his word. When he gave the speech, I wasn't surprised. I'm sorry you were. I don't think he felt he was lying when he said it was the most progressive platform we had in a long time.

Of course, it still sucks, because our old platform was killing us and we needed something much better. Its also not enough because politicians promise to do things, and fail to do them all the time. It is however, the only thing he could fight for in that moment. He made an agreement, and he lived by it as he usually does.

You don't think that? Fine. Its possible that he does. Its also possible that he wanted some of the things they agree to in the platform. You listed three very long complex memes which were untrue, and you left out the fourth most likely reason he would do it. 'Because he promised other Democrats he would unite against Trump if he lost, in order to gain their trust.' None of that other stuff is relevant.

Had he not said that, I don't believe he had any shot of being President. I'm not seeing the scandal taking her down now, its too late for that.

Its fair to say you think it was a bad decision, but that is not the same thing as a betrayal.

We lost. This is what losing feels like. I'm sorry. I don't think there was anything complicated or surprising about what happened, unless you didn't listen back when he told us what was coming.

I liked him then, I like him now. He was never a christ figure to me though.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

He was never a christ figure to me though.

It's really TOP-like, and I wish we'd just leave that mentality there. It pisses people off and/or puts them on the defensive. Though I am sure that was never your intent....

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

I wouldn't quite write it myself, but I respect the point.

There have been many on social media who have intimated such. The entire "Bernie sacrificed himself for the sake of the Movement" argument, not an uncommon comment I have seen...sorta intimates this sort of thing.

It isn't the majority false Premise/Rationalization, but it's out there enough to warrant concern and some criticism, IMHO.

up
0 users have voted.

Almost afraid to reply to this post. I'm kinda insulted, but each to his/her own.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

...I would imagine plenty of Berners would be ticked. But, keep in mind, please...I AM a Berner as well.

It's just that if his endorsement proved anything, it proved we can only take him for his words spoken...not what we think his words may have insinuated.

If that, then, is the measure of how to interpret Bernie (by words spoken)...these alternate Premises really do not have much leg to stand on.

That was my point. Again, not calling anyone gullible or anything. We all really DO want the same thing....I just think the avenue has to exit the established 2-party rule. And NOW, not in 2018....

up
0 users have voted.
martianexpatriate's picture

what people say, rather then what we wish they had said?

He did just exactly what he said he was going to do. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. He said, loudly and clearly, occasionally yelling while he did it, that he was going to unite it with whoever won against Trump.

Earlier then that, he said loudly and clearly that he was going to support the Democratic ticket, whoever won. Perhaps he thinks, as I still sometimes do, that Trump will do more damage to the country than Hillary? You can disagree with him if you like, but lets not pretend that there was any failure on his part to be clear about his position.

You are blaming him for not doing what you wanted because you disagree with him. That's it. He made himself excruciatingly clear. If you did not understand, it is only because you did not listen. Now your implying there was something dishonest about it. The only dishonesty that's going on here is with yourself.

Now tell me I'm an asshole. That's fine. Whether I am or not, lets not pretend that there was anything surprising going on here.

We lost. This is what losing feels like. I'm sorry.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

He did exactly what he had always said he would do, in the end.

he did, however, use the semantics/Politicspeak which allowed (I would argue actually invited) people to believe they really were rising up in a serious Revolution.

But yes, as I argued in my Athens piece, you go back and review, and the path he has chosen now has quite arguably always been supported by his public words previously.

up
0 users have voted.
mouselander's picture

No successful movement, no revolution, no popular uprising, can ever hope to achieve its goals unless and until those participating are willing and able to look reality in the eye and recognize it for what it is, however painful that recognition and realization may be. Magical thinking, wishing and hoping, fanciful conspiracy theories - these are all the province of ineffectual dreamers and dilettantes. This is where the Status Quo interests want us to be - but this is exactly where we need not to be.

To borrow a few lines from Dire Straits' Mark Knopfler:

Well take a look at that
I made a castle in the sand
Saying this is where it's at you know
Couldn't understand now
If I realised that the chances were slim
How come I'm so surprised when the tide rolled in?

I want to live on solid rock
I'm gonna live on solid rock
I want to give I don't want to be blocked
I'm gonna live on solid rock...

up
0 users have voted.

inactive account

but I'm surprised that Bernie fans ever expected things to turn out differently after the primaries ended.

up
0 users have voted.

would support the nominee. We don't have a nominee yet. He also said he was taking his campaign to the convention which he's not doing. He said he would offer a minority report, which he's also not doing.

Bernie reneged on things he said and the timing of same.

up
0 users have voted.

For example, one could have low expectations for a "miracle" and still find value in forcing our opponents to dig in. I want to see how far each of them will go to justify what they have done. And I want everyone else to see that too.

up
0 users have voted.
polkageist's picture

But then I don't get out much anymore. I'm sure you are right that some Berners are behaving as you say, but a large number have already headed over to the Green Party. Check out their reddit site https://www.reddit.com/r/jillstein/?

Could you please explain to me this statement: "3) DNC rules clearly state that berni 'had to' endorse otherwise he (or his delegates…two sub-versions of the argument circulated ) would be de-credentialed ; or he would be disallowed to speak.
Fueled by these erroneous arguments. . .".

I posted an essay earlier that makes this case by referring to the DNC Convention rules (Maybe we are overreacting to the endorsement. posted on 7/14) that does indeed say that a candidate who doesn't act as Bernie did will be stripped of his delegates and not be allowed to speak. If I'm wrong please show me and then that will be one more piece of misinformation out of the way.

The other points you make seem valid. They also seem to be regrettably predictable. But, as I said above, I think most of those suffering from buyers' remorse have gotten over it or, if not, are in a minority. We're all disappointed and irate but we're moving on. I doubt anyone will come at you to say "I told you so" because most of us are too busy fighting the military-industrial complex.

Edit: Correction made for an incorrect verb tense.

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

lunachickie's picture

and it's still in full bloom in certain quarters. Same damn song and dance as Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and yesterday. Now it's breathless recitation of what Wolfie Said On The Air. Like anybody around here takes the guy or his "network" seriously. Oh, puh-leeeze...

up
0 users have voted.
polkageist's picture

Thanks for doing the listening to any grousing or conspiracy theories. I stopped watching TV in the sixties and haven't missed it at all. I read books instead. The internet and communities like this have been a great improvement in getting news and facts. I've become a big internet user but still read books. It's so much easier on my nerves and blood pressure.

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

GeorgeJohn's picture

You say 'a candidate MUST act the way Bernie did or he will be stripped..."

OK, please (seriously, not being a wiseass): FIND ME the very rule which clearly states that...in a primary where neither candidate has secured the Nom (pledged delegates) prior to Convention...the second place candidate MUST ENDORSE the front running one PRIOR to Convention VOTE...or they will be stripped of delegates and disallowed from taking podium.

Because, to my knowledge, nobody has yet posted or linked to any such rule. THAT is the RULE I am seeking. I am NOT asking for someone's interpretation of a rule which contains generalized semantics or which 'touches' upon the notion that 'perhaps' it means X or Y.

Snopes has yet to find such, either.

Gary Hart, for one...and Teddy Kennedy, were he still with us...would actually be very surprised by the existence such a rule. As, to my knowledge...neither of THEM were REQUIRED to endorse their frontrunners. Neither DID so. And they sure as heck got to speak and have their floor fights/votes.

This is what I am referring to: people take a rule or event and re-interpret it to support the notion that Bernie was only doing what he HAD to to prevent his own disqualification.

Meh....y'know ?

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

you know his ass is covered. The allegation that he was the hatchet man is still alive and well on Twitter, and it was there where this was quoted. And it was absolutely believable, because--as you must know, being so knowledgeable about the entire situation--the DNC makes their own rules. Regularly. They can do that, see.

Now, with that out of the way--because you should already be well-aware about Rendell's slimy countenance, if you follow any of this stuff at all, and the endless missive above seems to want to be "well-aware", lest we all believe you and hang our heads in proper contrition and embarrassment--do demonstrate where you have ever seen a copy of said rules.

No? So....if you haven't either, then what are you saying? Are you're saying they don't exist, then? Are you linking to it somewhere above and it doesn't exist? Well, shuckies, Ward, I'm confused. Sounds to me like you don't have them, either. Quelle surprise. Do you really, seriously believe that there would be proof of such, that was so easily obtainable? Do you really, seriously expect the readers to believe that just because someone can't link to it now after it's been argued and floated around for the better part of a week, that it never could have possibly happened?

Perhaps you might put out a general call for same in your actual post here? I mean, if you did, cuz I didn't read it all, sorry, but I've never seen any such link, either. I was left with "sources" when I came upon that. About those sources--some are impeccable. Some aren't. Some will tell you the DNC does or does not link it. Some don't. Got any suggestions? After all, we all run the risk of finding said rule and then having you move the goalpost again ("Reliable Sources, please!!!" Or something...)

The reader is left with "what makes the most sense?" in lieu of actual links in the meantime, and there's not a damn thing wrong with that. If you have been paying any attention at all in the last ten years, that the scenario is so absolutely plausible as to be totally believable, and demands for that which you are practically stomping your foot in print to demand be produced are simply not the be-all and end-all of the matter.

You know what those people are capable of, so my suggestion would be to dial back the LECTURING and stop trying to LEAD us all to the desired conclusion that will allow us all to just shut the fuck up and vote for Hillary. Cuz it's #notgonnahappen

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

Some here are replying with aggression. Fair enough.

A few things which baffle me:

if you could direct me to where in my piece I have demanded 'contrition', apology, or whatever else you seem to imply...i would be happy to read it.

But...it's not in there.

the reader is left with "what makes the most sense ?"

That's basically where Bernie has left us, if I am not mistaken. And my answer is as stated in my piece: what makes the most sense is assuming the words he speaks are the truth.

if we do that, then there is no Revolution coming. There is just going to be a new 'wing' of a Broken Party. Hardly a conduit for the change he had energized his base to pursue.

Thanks for reading, again. Next time might I suggest you reply with a bit more...courtesy.

Your points could be taken more seriously if you lay off of the disparaging comments and innuendo, just a bit.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

The Democratic Platform is about as useful as the paper used to wrap fish--which it will be used for after Queen Hillary accepts her mantle. DWS and co-conspirators pay no more mind to the goddam platform than swatting a fly. The only reason there was a "platform fight" is because that pesky old guy from New England who had to be mollified with a symbolic but useless gesture. Long game, 11-D chess, go, smoke and mirrors--at this point none of us knows WTF is going to happen by July 29. Speculation? I can give you lots of speculation, but I won't dress it up and call it factual, or probable or possible or even bullshit. L.C., I agree with you about "sources"--like the sources on the Clinton News Network or the David Brock troll brigade. I have been as intensely as motivated by Bernie as anyone and felt (and still feel) immensely let down by his decision. But I will not call him a sell out nor a capitulator. vtcc73 posted an excellent analysis of the situation toward the end of a comment string of an essay concerning Counterpunch's analysis of Bernie's actions. There is analysis without ascribing blame. There is remorse expressed but no condemnation. I found it quite fitting. [The Essay in which vtcc73's comment was included is "Counterpunch's Sanders statement which is difficult to rebut, an invitation to do so"]

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

The Democratic Platform is about as useful as the paper used to wrap fish--which it will be used for after Queen Hillary accepts her mantle.

If you've been paying attention at all, you get that. Most of us here got it all along.

I can give you lots of speculation, but I won't dress it up and call it factual, or probable or possible or even bullshit

Same here. You and I are both well-clued in to the ever-multiplying passive-aggressive scold motif, posted in disguise with gravitas and authority. I do enjoy watching the struggle with the obvious, though--this may be the toughest crowd online in a political forum to come along in ten years Wink

up
0 users have voted.
polkageist's picture

You can find it at http://caucus99percent.com/content/maybe-we-are-overreacting-endorsement.

I read the Snopes article. They seem to be more worried about the fake story about FDR. Anyway, they do talk about the rules in a general way and don't find explicit rules such as you are looking for. That lack is not surprising. If you are looking for a rule that says, "candidates are required to endorse each other before the convention" or "you will be stripped of delegates in this circumstance," you won't find it. I think it is a naive to think that such a rule would ever be written. Try to think more like a lawyer or businessman or politician who wants flexibility in parts of procedures or contracts or documents. Also it is usual to expect that not every situation can be anticipated. I think you would find Hart and Kennedy understood this.

Section VI, paragraphs g and m, of the DNC Delegate Selection Materials, which is on page 130 or 131, has the info I quote, but, given your antipathy to parsing documents, I really think it would be well for you to read my short essay. It was written to calm just the sort of excitement you are tired of.

Finally, Bernie did what he did for whatever reasons he had. I really don't care, but I want people to stop raging at him and just get on with deposing the oligarchy. I'm with the Greens again and am quite happy to let all of this go.
Meh....y'know ?

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

GeorgeJohn's picture

I am with you on your last paragraph...time to gird up for the next chapter, no point in wallowing in blame.

Work to be done, and Bernie is no longer providing a viable path to challenge the Corporate Plutocracy.

I must add, though...as I anticipated, after reading your piece...indeed you have NOT provided anyone here with a Rule, Bylaw, or such which confirms that there is a DNC rule which requires the guy in second to endorse the guy in first if they are both active candidates as neither had sealed the Nom via required number of pledged delegates.

Page 131 sections G and M absolutely do NOT state the above. "You can find a copy of the DNC Delegate Selection Materials at https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8c7Y7RNspgDMTc5ZWIyNWMtZmM2Zi00...
Section VI starts at page 131."

What you have done is take a section or two which again, contains generalized semantics and outlines the expectations about how a member should act...and have extrapolated it to support the aformentioned notion that there was any sort of requirement.

As I noted in another reply....there is ZERO HISTORY of this requirement ever having been utilized before (ask Gary Hart, or the family of Teddy Kennedy. THOSE were incredibly contested campaigns/conventions; neither candidate was 'forced' to endorse their frontrunner).

From your piece: "the young man who makes these points in the video seems knowledgeable" is hardly a rock-solid reinforcement that his interpretation is accurate, quite honestly.

While I respect that, in your opinion, it might show some sort of proof that Bernie was required to do something...your basis is simply one (pretty arguable) interpretation of the doc, and not what is written in the doc itself; nor what any Convention precedent can support.

Given the document, the 'seemingly knowledgable young man in the vid', and your personal assessment....I will still lean towards the assessment of Snopes; which is an organization possessing many more tools and structures to confirm or refute.

Thanks for replying. Again, I support your comments that Progressives should not get trapped into infighting at the present.

up
0 users have voted.

...and considering that Clinton still does not have the majority of pledged delegates to win the nomination (she's about a hundred shy), i can't think of any other reason for Sanders to submit to an endorsement prior to the convention unless he was forced to do so. something went on in negotiations to prevent him from taking his campaign to the convention. i just hope his delegates don't go along quite so willingly. i'd like to see some fireworks and have the Democratic party understand that we're not done yet with Bernie's endorsement.

up
0 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

I must agree with Brother Cornel

This November, we need change. Yet we are tied in a choice between Trump, who would be a neo-fascist catastrophe, and Clinton, a neo-liberal disaster. That’s why I am supporting Jill Stein. I am with her – the only progressive woman in the race – because we’ve got to get beyond this lock-jaw situation. I have a deep love for my brother Bernie Sanders, but I disagree with him on Hillary Clinton. I don’t think she would be an “outstanding president”. Her militarism makes the world a less safe place.

Clinton policies of the 1990s generated inequality, mass incarceration, privatization of schools and Wall Street domination. There is also a sense that the Clinton policies helped produce the right-wing populism that we’re seeing now in the country. And we think she’s going to come to the rescue? That’s not going to happen.

I think many people of good heart and values will be in Philly. We're still moving!

Protests at the conventions with Chris Hedges 27 min
Cheri Honkala, director of the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, and Galen Tyler, leader of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, are leading the March for Lives, raising awareness of poverty and homelessness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxmDVWM5SBE

Philly airport workers and Taxi driver plan to strike during DNC 3min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMWbN9jebAk

We do what we can.

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

thanatokephaloides's picture

I think many people of good heart and values will be in Philly. We're still moving!

[....]

We do what we can.

And once you've done that, and $hillary gets nominated anyway, then the course of action for Berniacs is clear:

(1) #DemExit; and then
(2) Support and vote for Jill Stein!

Smile

Jill Stein 2016: because fuck this shit!

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Thank you, GeorgeJohn, for a clear-eyed take on the new, unwanted, sad reality of Bernie's revolution, which has the feel of a slow-motion car wreck. I hope many progressives will now flock to Jill Stein and help her build a successful progressive movement. I intend to pivot from Bernie and give my support to her. Despite what Bill Clinton said about us having no place to go if we leave the Dem party, I believe that now we have someplace to go.

up
0 users have voted.
MsGrin's picture

Still sucking air.

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

GeorgeJohn's picture

If one expects the Patient to make a dramatic recovery....the current status would not support that prognosis.

I am, again, not intending to trash anyone's Faith....

up
0 users have voted.
MsGrin's picture

To quote someone who does not deserve to be quoted in general, we do not know what we do not know about what's going on behind the scenes. We may NEVER know. Then again, maybe we will at some point.

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

GeorgeJohn's picture

...attribute the Quote, at least :0

up
0 users have voted.
MsGrin's picture

...the ones we don't know we do not know.

I confess that as little as I EVER want to see him get anymore airtime, this is one of my very favorite quotes ever.

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

GeorgeJohn's picture

Foook.....:0

up
0 users have voted.
Meteor Man's picture

I vaguely recall Fast Track approval meaning the filibuster was barred on a TPP vote. Could be wrong.

Is there anything in the Senate rules that allow Elizabeth Warren and Bernie to derail a lame duck approval of TPP?

up
0 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

thing Bernie or Liz can do is persuade Obama not to serve it up or get some republicans not to vote for it, but if they do persuade some republicans not to vote for it, I'm positive the screws will be turned and they'll find some Dem turncoats to vote for it enough to reach 51 votes or 50/50 and Biden breaking the tie.

Luckily, we can thank McConnell for saying he won't bring it up for a vote -- if he means that.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

If we wanna talk about Cognitive Dissonance...let's imagine a scenario where Congress would vote TPP DOWN or Obama would VETO it.

Yes, sure...anything's possible, right ?

(I for one am seething that one of our own here in OR, Dem Ron Wyden, actually voted to Fast-Track...when his vote wasn't really needed, even >:()

up
0 users have voted.

Bernie didn't suspend his campaign, which means the super-delegates will decide the nomination. And they will own it, for better or worse. It will be on them, not us!

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Then why was his Secret Service detail removed?

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

Whether he has a Secret Service detail or not is not indicative of his "suspending" his campaign or not.

For all you know, the guy got sick of having them around, in part because he no longer really needed them, and ecause of all the whiny little babies who thought he cost the SS THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND ADDITIONAL NEW TAXPAYER DOLLARS per hour or some bullshit...

up
0 users have voted.

other than what has already been announced with his successor organizations. Here, Occam's razor applies, and I'm taking Bernie's actions at face value. I get that people want to hope that something dramatic happens and that he ends up being the nominee, but the odds of that are slim to none. I refuse to buy into the narrative that this is 11th dimensional chess again, and set myself up for disappointment. If something happens, great, but if not, I've accepted the fact that it will be Hillary v. Trump in November, and that I will be voting for Jill Stein.

Regardless, I think it's time for the movement to go beyond Bernie and focus on the future.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

If only I were as succinct as you...I might make my friends drink a bit less.....

up
0 users have voted.

He has said from the beginning that he would support the Democratic nominee, even if it is not him. The very fact that he ran as a Democrat implies that he intended to try to reform the party; it is we who are saying that he has proven that it cannot be reformed, not him.
He is not a Swillery, who says whatever the people want to hear, then does whatever the masters demand. He is not an Obama, who lets us believe whatever we want to believe, and then justifies his betrayals. It is we who do not like this part of his strategy, now that he has chosen that path. It is we who are not wiling to admit that the fix is in and it is time to move to Plan B. Bernie has always said that Plan B is the important one anyway, regardless of the outcome of Plan A, it is us who are forgetting that.
Bernie has always planned to lead a progressive movement, from the Presidency or from the senate. He has clearly decided that he cannot succeed in 2016. He has clearly decided to lead a progressive movement in the senate, and to do that he needs the Democrats. This is our goal as well, angry, hurt, or not. The question for us is, how do we achieve that goal?
Personally, I think Bernie's stated plan has a dangerous flaw - to succeed we must tell the truth as well, and we are certain that the Democratic Party is hopelessly corrupt, so in Philadelphia we have to say it. But that means we must say it in a way that strengthens Bernie, not undermines him. Frankly, I don't know how to do that, but at least I have to raise the problem.
Electoraly we have the following options: we can vote for Trump or Hillary - but the Shining Path has shown us that "let things go down until the people can't take it any more" doesn't work. Societies are not alcoholics, they do not hit bottom, they just keep sinking. We can vote Green or Libertarian. Personally I don't think the Libertarians are a valid option, but others might. ( some of Bernie's independent support has been what I call "principled conservatives" - the right needs to be reformed as well ) Or we can stay home.
I suggest a "3rd party or stay home" tactic. We have to face it - either Swillery or Trump (or "Paul Ryan" - i.e. a fascist "white knight" other Republican) will win. Our goal now is 2020. If Trump wins there was nothing we could have done; best to have made it as humiliating as possible. (and let Bernie be able to say I told you so!) If Swillery wins make her vote total as low as possible - again humiliate her. It won't affect her behavior, but it might put the fear of God into the rest of the Dem Party. (and we can trust Bernie to politely and effectively say "the 3rd way is death, progressivism is survival") If Swillery wins in 2016 there will be - must be - a progressive challenge in 2020, and it must win, or we will have simply delayed the "Paul Ryan" scenario. Note that in this scenario the goal is to reduce Swillery's vote total, not elevate Jill stein's, but elevating Stein's totals strengthen's Bernie's position; I will be voting Green.
But then there is the Doomsday Scenario. If the fascists rebel against Trump (because he is an unreliable fascist, they want a corrupt fascism, not a racist fascism) and nominate a white knight (Paul Ryan?) then there will be no 2020 election for a progressive to win. In that event it pains me to say that we need to… vote 3rd party in safe states, but Swillery in battleground states. To win in 2020 we need a nation. Swillery may, probably will, try to establish a Stassi level police state, but it would backfire on her, a Paul Ryan would not only try, he would succeed.
DAMN! I hated that last sentence!

up
0 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

GeorgeJohn's picture

That is my problem with this 'slow build' movement idea. I wrote in an earlier essay: consider the Corporate Plutocracy to be a Stonemason, a Dam Builder. They do not just finish the structure and walk away.

They always revisit, vigilantly looking for any drips of water, leaks, cracks which they may have missed. Then they attend to those leaks to assure no water gets thru.

In 2016 the Mason thought he has a slam-bang Gauntlet. But missed a few things, and has ham-fistedly (almost comically) been plugging those holes since January, in transparent plain sight for all to see.

One year of Shillary admin, the Plutocracy Mason will have patched up those remaining (legal/civil) holes.

To mix a metaphor, the window is still open a crack now. in 2018, '20, '22 ? You think ????

up
0 users have voted.

We should have done this in 2008 - Obama should have been an FDR rather than a Quisling. (your mason analogy perfectly describes the Obama presidency)
But we have an ace in the hole that we didn't have in 2008 - Swillery. The more people see of her the more they hate what they see. The corporate Dems will get swamped in 2018, if not in 2016 - either by us or by the fascists - it better be us.
Take your own advise - the fight for 2016 is essentially lost; we must now plan for 2018 and 2020, have the strongest position we can for then, whether we like it or not.

up
0 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

lunachickie's picture

who's more right on the Internet?

I actually saw a comment from someone here recently--"Remind me in X months that I said this", so we'd all know he/she was Right About Some Prediction They Made Online. I feel the same way about those that I feel about "GoodByle Cruel World" blog posts...

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

Societies are not alcoholics, they do not hit bottom, they just keep sinking.

But they do sink far enough that violent Revolution occurs. To ignore this fact is to ignore history. The differences in the various national revolutions is at which point the majority of activists can convince enough of the populace that indeed things have gotten about as bad as they should be allowed. Russia 2007, 2017. France 1789. USA 1776.

To win in 2020 we need a nation.

Damn right, we need a nation but not underwater, which it will be if the Queen of Fracking has her way. If you Trump is bad (which he is), Hillary will be worse. Being basically a Republican herself she will have no difficulty convincing the Repubs and the Conservadems to vote with her on the further enrichment of the uppermost class. Even Trump does not talk of eliminating social security, at least most of the time. Do you trust Medusa not to disrupt our social welfare nets after Slick Willie killed off the "Welfare Queens" figuratively (and perhaps in some cases literally through neglect).

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

They want society to keep sinking:

Societies are not alcoholics, they do not hit bottom, they just keep sinking.

But they want to avoid The Revolution at all costs:

But they do sink far enough that violent Revolution occurs. To ignore this fact is to ignore history.

You're absolutely right, and that's why we're seeing these elaborate word games and endless news-cycles with their REPETITION. It's the reason all the "sinking" is so gradual. So you get well-accustomed to it before they move on to the next sinkhole...

up
0 users have voted.

....we expect to be able to change the district reapportionment. my fear is that a Clinton presidency might just suppress voter enthusiasm just as it did with Obama in 2010 and 2014. we'll never get the majority again if we don't stoke enthusiasm in voters, and no, fear Trump/Republican should not be a plan A. convince voters to vote for you, not against your opponent. things won't change, otherwise, but this year has convinced a good many of us that that has been the Democratic playbook for decades and likely into the future. we'll continue to get middling establishment Democratic candidates as long as people continue to give in to their fear. my life is nearly done on this earth. i'd just like to see some bit of evidence that the U.S. is bending back toward the citizens of 'we the people' and away from the 'corporations are people' of Citizens United before my spirit leaves my body. i'm not very hopeful, sorry to say.

up
0 users have voted.

I realize this is a HARD piece for Berners to read. So I will close by adding THIS: I do not begrudge you your Faith.

I don't like the word "Faith" here, especially since it's capitalized. I do trust Bernie, but that has nothing to do with Faith. He is just a rare politician who has actually earned trust over decades of service to the public. He can, of course, make mistakes. In truth, there were more times that I felt disappointed with Bernie during this election than with Clinton. To understand that in context, though, I should also note that I didn't exactly have high expectations for ethical conduct from the Clintons and I have always had high expectations for Bernie. However, even with a few specific disappointments, Bernie far exceeded my overall expectations for this election. I do not know what Bernie is thinking right now, but I still think it's a good idea to maximize his leverage for the convention. Nothing is lost in doing so.

I have no idea what happens next, but my overall sense is that we've barely begun to fight. We've just been poking things to see when they get mad. We got caught up in a wave that was much more powerful than anyone expected, and have only recently had a chance to slow down and examine where we are. Let's not forget about that important thing that we recently noticed, that we somehow overlooked before: We have numbers. More people than we thought want the same things that we do. We also have millennials and their see-through-the-media-bullshit superpowers.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

? ...because when the facts and patterns already established clearly suggest one outcome, yet a large % of followers are still hanging their hopes on another outcome; without the strength of being able to back their arguments/assertions for the latter with something other than misrepresentations/misinterpretations of actual events/statements/laws/rules...

...then the basis for the belief that things will go the way they hope...is faith-based.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

up
0 users have voted.

the difference between your characterization and mine doesn't matter very much. As I mentioned in the other comment, one could have very low expectations (or very little faith) of things going our way at the convention, but still find value in what we are doing right now.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

in every single context of this particular campaign.

I've been thinking a lot about that, because--and particularly at places like The Daily Orange Football--lecturers have this annoying tendency to belittle the idea of having a little faith in whatever processes are currently playing out. I'm still working out why that's shaping up to be some kind of effective propaganda leaning that I have to try and understand--cuz it gets used so much, particularly in the last few years--but I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.

And I'll be happy to share Smile

up
0 users have voted.

It was the word "Faith" that I was reacting to and you're making me wonder why.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

that I reacted to that word in that context--in it, the word is used condescendingly, if not insultingly. Further, the usage seems quite deliberate, as if to make the reader feel grotesque shame for having any faith at all in any person, place or thing.

Expecting the "reality-based" to make an appearance, up next in 3....2....1....

(ps: not from you, roo)

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

because, there was nothing condescending about my use of the word Faith.

Nothing whatsoever.

Faith can be a very positive and powerful thing. As history has shown an ample number of times.

It can also be very misleading and destructive, as History has shown an ample number of times.

So if it was that aspect which was seriously ruffling your feathers and resulted in your rather aggressive response to my piece...rest assured there was no intent to portray the idea of Faith in a negative light.

Thanks for making that comment though, it gave me an opportunity to clarify/reiterate.

up
0 users have voted.

I don't think she was talking about you. I think she was asking a question about the degree to which our participation elsewhere might have altered our perception of that word when used in a certain context (For some of us, anyway). It's a good question. It was that word that prompted me to post a comment in a somewhat defensive posture even though I can now see that you intended no insult. It's just a little startling to realize that one word so strongly altered the way I perceived your post.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

It's just a little startling to realize that one word so strongly altered the way I perceived your post.

I believe the poster as well, but I was actually referring to him/her. It's good that it's now clarified, though it begs additional question (at least to me); in the end, though, I like your interpretation best of all, of all the comments here:

I don't know, but I suspect..,the difference between your characterization and mine doesn't matter very much.

It's all speculation, after all, isn't it?

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

now that you've clarified this, right?

There was nothing condescending about my use of the word Faith.

See, here's where sometimes people misunderstand what happens when they post their opinion anywhere. You can put your thoughts out for dissemination, but once it is out there, you no longer have the power to control others' reactions to it.

My reaction is that you were quite condescending in places, and pointing that out is no more aggressive than being condescended to in return. I do appreciate your attempt to reply in a way that continues to try to lend gravitas to your argument, but I find the explanation lends even more confusion to your piece. If you're not worried about Sanders people being 'faith-based" in their belief systems, then what's the problem?

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

Nor I would fathom, would anyone who posts here have any expectations of 'controlling' another's reactions or the subsequent comments section.

Thanks for clarification, the issue was more who you/others were addressing their comment to, which created my confusion/interpr of your comments.

up
0 users have voted.
stevej's picture

and Bernie's history is one of being absolutely true to his word and principles.
He has a record of fighting for his beliefs combined with an ability to know when to settle.
I agree with him about 70% of the time policy wise but I never get the feeling that he says one thing in public then something completely different behind closed doors.

I may revise my opinion when the full story of this election is written but I doubt that I will need to.
None of us know what bargains have been struck yet -Clinton got SoS in 2008. For all we know maybe Sanders has struck a deal to keep Goldman Sachs out of the Whitehouse or something similar. I don't think this is likely but it is not impossible and, at present, we just don't know.

Quick edit/addition: I think that Bernie is on record as saying something along the lines of its the people that matter more than the platforms. He is known to place huge importance on getting the right people into position to do the most good and certainly understands the uselessness of promises without leverage, It is possible that the whole platform discussion is one big distraction.

up
0 users have voted.

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire

GeorgeJohn's picture

FWIW, I am having a hard time with a Politician who literally called people to Revolution...then failed to cross the Line necessary to achieve that Revolution. This I discussed in my "Athens" essay. People certainly will differ, but this argument and observation is quite strong, methinks.

So, while I will not challenge many of Bernie's virtues, and a fair amount of his honesty...in my view...he utilized the semantics and tools of Urgency, and Revolt - he made a Clarion Call. Then when people responded - he didn't go where such a Leader needed to go.

What he is concocting now (apparently) is a fall-back consolation prize to give the appearance of some sort of victory, IMHO.

if NOT, then his Faith in the Dems as a Conduit or potential Conduit for real change...was shockingly misguided and should have been jettisoned after NY Primary. certainly after NV.

Thanks for reading - thx for the reply.

up
0 users have voted.
stevej's picture

is not a one election cycle project. Its roots go back years, at least to early days of Occupy Wall Street and will extend some time into the future I suspect.

Regarding the revolution - that did not begin with him. He tapped into something that was already there- again with roots in OWS (and BLM for that matter) and carried the torch for a while. Someone else or other groups will carry on running with it. Sanders got way further than I expected and I certainly could not see the 99% vs 1% discussion entering the general election this cycle. Another related thing is the harsh critiques of the 'lesser of two evils' strategy/blackmail approach.

To sum up my views: He has done more than most to make the revolution possible - now it is up to us.

up
0 users have voted.

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire

GeorgeJohn's picture

But it's 2016, and lets call a spade a spade: the Planet is running out of time.

This whole "revolutions do not recognize election cysles" argument again, is laudable.

Unfortunately, we are up against a window about to slam shut...both regarding Plutocractic Manipulation and Environmental tipping point.

So I would put forth that optimism towards the idea of building a revolution and securing eventual change is nice.

But ...July 2016: we are well past the 2-minute warning.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

so we'd better get out from behind our keyboards and do....something.

Look for a leader to follow? I used to have this idea that nobody does anything about (whatever), because we're all too busy sitting around looking at one another, waiting for somebody else to go first...

PS did I mention I was still voting Green? I'm really looking forward to not voting for either duopoly candidate.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

...I have observed it's important for Movements to have a Leader, or Figurehead, or Personality to associate with the Movement.

In absence of that Personality, things never really coalesce....

Perhaps a generalization, but not a ridiculous one....

up
0 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

As it pertains to the immediate future. However, post convention, there is at least one wild card to be played and that would be perjury charges before the congress. I don't think this should be taken lightly, it is not a red herring. Should she be elected, her presidency will be crippled from day one. If that doesn't wake the neolibs up, nothing will.

I never believed for a minute that the gentleman from Vermont would ever make it this far. As much as I've enjoyed the euphoria of Sanders unexpected success along with every other Bernie supporter -- along with the heartbreak of seeing first hand the rot and corruption now inherent within the DNC; I never believed for a minute that the establishment would ever let a true progressive become the party nominee. America is chock full of stupid people. That is how George W. Bush almost got elected. Enough thoroughly stupid people voted for him to give cause for a coup d'etat to be executed by the Supreme Court. There are just as many imbeciles in the base of the Democratic party. Yeah -- I get kinda pissed off when I think about it too much.

On the upside. Democratic Socialism is inevitable. I truly believe that. If the planet doesn't go the way of Mars.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

Earth is going the way of Venus, not Mars - assuming we're talking planets, not Roman Gods.

up
0 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

sojourns's picture

Let's use the Roman god reference. Mars is war. Venus is love.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

GeorgeJohn's picture

What is the destination Planet of the 1% ? I'd imagine the rocket ship under Denver Airport is prepping.....

up
0 users have voted.
polkageist's picture

You're right, of course. But it helps to remember that, by definition, 50% of us are below average in intelligence. At least that makes it more understandable if not comforting.

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

sojourns's picture

Sincere question. Fifty percent are below average in intelligence? What is the norm? Ninety IQ points? How does one know if a Navaho Indian is a genius blanket weaver; meaning what is a cultural norm?

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

polkageist's picture

Here is the dictionary definition: a number representing a person's reasoning ability (measured using problem-solving tests) as compared to the statistical norm or average for their age, taken as 100.

Thus, IQ is an average which means it is the halfway point in the scale of scores of the people tested. Thus, by definition of "average" one half have a below average IQ.

Since it is dealing with problem-solving tests which are culture specific to at least some degree, the Navajo blanket weaver would be at a disadvantage if they were not also a part of Anglo culture to some degree. But cultural norms were beside the point in what was meant as a semi-humorous remark. What I meant is that it is likely that half of us are rather dim. I would expand on that to say that I think it really applies to each individual. I know I can be obtuse at times.

Digression: Interestingly, I just read an article somewhere that gave IQ scores for Presidents past and present. They all had IQs in excess of 100, some quite a bit higher. I think Bill Clinton was assessed near 150. So IQ has nothing to do with how one acts, just with reasoning ability.

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

sojourns's picture

I think what befuddles me is the lack of instinct of some people or their willingness to ignore their instincts, preferring to be bamboozled time and time again. As P.T. Barnum said....

What you say is true. The ethics or moral compass of individuals are no measure of intellect. The smarter they are, the potentially more dangerous. What would Bush's presidency been like if Cheney hadn't been pulling the strings? Methinks the Clinton's are smart enough to hire a sociopath with a double Y chromosome to take care of business but I might get in trouble for that. I too can be obtuse.

By the way. I am wondering who's portrait you are using for an avatar? I'm guessing either Goethe or Brahms?

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

TheOtherMaven's picture

I haven't seen that specific image anywhere, and I'm not sure he ever got quite that bald.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

polkageist's picture

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

Pages