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

TheOtherMaven's picture

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Meteor Man's picture

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

WindDancer13's picture

I've looked at life from both sides now
From give and take and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all

[video:https://youtu.be/A7Xm30heHms]

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

featheredsprite's picture

are actually symptoms of grief. Some of started the grieving process before others did. I started when Obama sandbagged Bernie with his endorsement of Hillary. Others didn't start the process until Bernie endorsed Hills.

Grieving is a process. It doesn't happen all at once. You go through stages in which you really aren't very reasonable. You are vulnerable in many ways. But you go through all those permutations of yourself and eventually settle down and become yourself again.

Some of the early grievers already had Plan B in hand when Bernie endorsed Hillary. Others will eventually come up with a plan for the future.

Please be gentle with the Bernie supporters. They are already hurting.

up
0 users have voted.

Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.

lunachickie's picture

Now GO. GO AWAY and FEEL SHAME because you had FAITH in something. And don't come back until you're ready to sit down, shut up and vote for Hillary.

You WILL EAT your shit sandwich and you WILL LIKE it.

up
0 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

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).

seems to me to argue for immediate DemExit followed by full-blown support of fellow progressive Jill Stein.

Of course, I could be wrong here; it's happened before. 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

if progressives split off from the Democratic party it would likely mean the end of their occasional majority control. a split would put them in the minority to the Republicans and i think that is what they fear the most so they try to stamp out any progressive noise. what will it take to get more representative voices in Congress? people suggest a parliamentary system of representation so that the minority parties can form a coalition but our system seems so entrenched and progressives have a really bad habit of being absorbed into the machine once they're in office when we only pick off a seat here and there. i don't think that will change until there is some overwhelming upset to place more progressives in office at once. maybe that is what Brand New Congress is all about and whatever Sanders has planned post-convention. i doubt we are going to see sudden change as soon as this year but one can be hopeful for 2018. either Trump or Clinton will have enraged voters to the point of throwing out the bums by then.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

Thanks for the reply. Good observations, glad you chimed in.

As I stated a multitude of times in the piece...my intention was not to strafe anybody. I just observe what I feel is an alarming trend, wanted to share my thoughts.

As noted by myself and others, now is not the time for Progressives to fray....

up
0 users have voted.
divineorder's picture

up
0 users have voted.

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

is the endorsement coming before concession.

Typically, a candidate concedes the election then later decides whether to endorse his rival. Can't remember another election where the outcome was so ass-backwards.

But as you rightly point out, the Dems need Berners to show up to the Convention, so they promote the fantasy that it's not over, because otherwise they're looking at a half-empty house on national TV.

What I'd like to see is the Bernie delegates all show up the first night to cheer him on and then not show up for the next three nights. Or else show up for the nomination tally but boycott Hillary's speech the last night and hold their own rally somewhere else.

So many possibilities to skunk the coronation, once we stop pretending that's not what it will be.

up
0 users have voted.

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?

lunachickie's picture

being boiled down to a simplistic conclusion. Which is fine, don't get me wrong--the better to try and understand it. But here, though, it seems you're damned if you do and damned if you don't

If you Show Up, you're helping The Coronation.
If you Stay Home, you're not stopping The Coronation.

I tell you, I just don't know what I am supposed to think or do anymore. All this noise, noise, noise, NOISE!
(apologies to Dr. Seuss there...)

I do agree with this much, though:

So many possibilities to skunk the coronation

I would love to see your ideas to that end, but only if we already know what the live broadcast delay will be on all the national coverage. Timing is everything, you know. I think we're all well-aware that Mrs. Clinton wants her coronation, so it would be kind of fun to "skunk" the proceedings, wouldn't it?

Diablo

up
0 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

I think we're all well-aware that Mrs. Clinton wants her coronation, so it would be kind of fun to "skunk" the proceedings, wouldn't it?

There's always the Redneck Hillbilly Method of skunking the coronation, you know.....

...... i.e., use actual skunks..... [ducking!] /snark

Bad Diablo

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

lunachickie's picture

Well? It would...

up
0 users have voted.
Bisbonian's picture

and would be happy to share. I have Striped, Spotted, and Hog Nosed (which has a Trump haircut, and might be fun.)

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

polkageist's picture

If so, I vote for this one:
"What I'd like to see is the Bernie delegates all show up the first night to cheer him on and then not show up for the next three nights "and then "hold their own rally somewhere else."
And this is all of what Not Henry Kissinger suggests but not separated. The only thing that might make it more fun are a few rotten eggs and tomatoes. But we have become too civilized for that. Darn.

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

..who'll be countin' the Votes ?

(sorry...that was just a sittin' duck)

up
0 users have voted.
Bisbonian's picture

in counting the votes?

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

lunachickie's picture

it'll be like the early pics from the primary, where there were no "long shots" at some Clinton rallies, lest they see the place only a third full (if that!). One supposes a Berner or five better hang around for the vote counting, but other than that, an almost half-empty hall makes its own kind of statement. And it's not a pretty one, either.

up
0 users have voted.

I've given a lot of thought to what happened this primary season, and as a bernie supporter, I feel played.

There are too many things that never made sense to me from a supporter point of view. There's the drip drip of gentlemanly statements covering shillary's butt; not fighting back against election fraud and disenfranchisement of so many likely bernie voters; the premature endorsement of the 'dem nominee' and, not just endorsing, but actively campaigning for shillary.

I don't have insider knowledge and only speak for myself but, when I look at who benefited from bernie's primary run, his run looks suspiciously like a red herring. With or without bernie's knowledge, We were provided with a big distraction and allowed to feel as if we were fighting back. What the dems got in return was no damage at all to the anointed one from a primary 'battle,' huge increases in party registrations, and millions of new names from which to fund-raise. Plus, with bernie having declared allegiance and stumping for her heinous--the final straw for me--I think the dems fully expect his supporters to vote for that monster.

I have since decided three things for myself.
1. There is no fixing the dem party from inside or outside; we need a new party.
2. I couldn't hold off on my demexit and did it already, and
3. I'll be voting Green in November.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

..a pessimistic one. But quite honestly, enough Reality there to support this version.

FWIW, I don't really think Bernie's run was a Dummy Run; I do believe he actually believed at one point he could win. And, in fact...

Had the votes not been rigged so badly (I am talking absurdly rigged, right ? Not like ShillaryMachine just shaving off a few points now and again, but wholesale "are you fucking kidding me ? That's not possible !" rigging)...he would have been correct.

But I do feel, like you, there was a false aspect to his campaign. There were Lines he wouldn't cross. When the time came for him to hit and hit hard...he just wouldn't do it. And supporters were left once again with having to swallow wink 'n nod interpretations: "he's taking high road...he doesn't wanna go whupass on the Party he is running within - it'll pay off at Convention !...etc, etc...

All in all, it's pretty hard to deny most of your observations/arguments. Wish that wasn't so.

up
0 users have voted.

I also know people have been removing themselves from his fundraiser list so they are gone if he does end up passing on the list. I think he has plans to keep his list for future fundraising. His will need it for his institution to educate progressives on how to run campaigns.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

to assume he's able to "hold that hostage" until he gets what he wants is absurd.

One more time, the Sanders donor database is part and parcel of the DNC database. The DNC "allowed" Sanders to have his own database with separate coding, only available to Sanders staff. Same with Clinton records or if Martin O'Malley was still in, his records as well. The eventual actual nominee gets access to *all records* at the conclusion of the primaries. Please take this out of the mix for further consideration, as it really is a red herring, in and of itself, in this particular context.

up
0 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

discussions regarding whether FSC will be 'given' Bernie's donor list. So, I truly don't think that anyone can control what he does with his lists--but him, or his Campaign.

As I've mentioned, posting the excerpt in the past, in the instances where Bernie's campaign used the Act Blue PAC to fundraise, and they 'own' their lists--it makes sense to surmise that his donor lists could possibly be 'purchased' from Act Blue (by FSC, or anyone).

Of course, these lists are not sold cheaply (that's the implication, and I have no idea 'how much' they actually cost). I'm under the impression that is 'why' so many talking heads--including folks like Rep Keith Ellison--are always hyperventilating about this topic.

Of course, I agree with you that the DNC likely has access. And, I would think that they can use his lists to fundraise on behalf of FSC. Which might mean that she won't need to worry about buying, or being given his lists--if she's satisfied with 'indirect' fundraising.

Frankly, we don't give out our email addresses. If one is required, we simply don't participate in an activity (anymore). Heck, we don't even use return addresses on our US mail, after finding out the handling process for all mail.

Mollie


“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption

Misty May - NMDR

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Older and Wiser Now's picture

On the one hand, I applaud the notion of "Sanders supporters are flawed human beings, just like HRC supporters and everyone else on the planet." We all have blind spots ... it is often easier for others to spot our flaws than for us to spot them ourselves. It is good to know about one's flaws, because then one has an opportunity to try to reflect and take action to improve oneself.

I also applaud the description of cognitive dissidence and different mechanisms for coping. Very nice.

But on the other hand, it seems to me that the author is rather making a mountain out of a molehill. No one other than Sanders' closest confidants completely knows what Sanders is up to, and what he is going to do at the convention. I don't understand the importance to the writer that everyone on c99 accept the writer's theory that Sanders has 100% dropped out of the race at this point ... it very well may be that the writer is 100% correct with their theory, but what is the downside to allowing other Sanders folks to hold a different one? Why is it so important at this time for everyone to agree that there is absolutely a zero chance that Sanders will be president? I don't get it.

up
0 users have voted.

~OaWN

GeorgeJohn's picture

I...the author..am insisting or expecting that 'everyone' n this site accept my interpretations....

????

Did I ever request/require/suggest that ?

This piece came about because I was quite bothered by accepting a certain Premise circulating regarding the events of the past week. Motivators come from many different places.

My understanding of this site, and others like it...is that it is a place to lay out your thoughts, arguments, observations, and even just plain raw feelings if one wishes....

...and share and discuss them. Maybe, a piece at its best, could offer a view or idea to someone who had not considered such before....

So any reader, of course, has a right to question a writer's assertions or premise. Fair enough. I think I have backed mine pretty well. If some disagree, that's part of the dynamic and discussion.

But making an assertion does not necessarily coincide with demanding readers agree with it.

Thanks for replying, and for reading the essay.

up
0 users have voted.
Older and Wiser Now's picture

has an implicit quality of being judgemental of Sanders supporters who don't share your view.

Your title sets up the premise that many Sanders folks suffer from cognitive dissonance. You've heard of a loaded question? You have essentially written a loaded essay.

A loaded question is set up in way that makes it impossible for those to whom it is asked to escape unharmed. For example, "When did you stop beating your wife?" presumes guilt and is therefore offensive. If the respondent answers with indignation, which is a natural response to an offensive question, they they become open to charges of "being defensive" - a response that often is presumed to indicate guilty. It's a no win situation.

With your essay, either one agrees with your premise or they don't. If one agrees, you are proven correct. If they don't agree, your essay presumes that they are guilty of suffering from cognitive dissonance and therefore "cannot see the truth.". Again, you are proven correct.

You basically cast anyone who is holding out hope that some kind of event will happen between now and the convention to shift momentum to Sanders advantage as suffering from a psychological malady. You have put them in a lose/lose situation.

  • If they keep their opinion, they must argue under a situation where they are presumed to be psychologically "disturbed."
  • If they give up their hopes, they are deemed to be psychologically healthy, but the cost is giving up their own view to one that has been deemed appropriate by you.

A prior poster wrote,

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

to which you replied,

That's OK, as I said ... I would imagine plenty of Berners would be ticked.

I believe that the poster disagrees with your premise, but comprehends the lose/lose predicament that you have set up for such persons. They are insulted because you have implicitly called them psychologically damaged to some degree; which isn't a very nice thing to do.

And your reply is a bit gobsmacking ... you submitted the essay with the belief that many Berners would be ticked when they read it (think about that for a moment) and then you FORGIVE the poster for being insulted. Such a response strikes me as condescending.

This site is indeed a place to share and explore various thoughts, and most here are tolerant of those who disagree with them. However asking loaded questions is not a recipe to engage in a friendly discussion, especially with those who would otherwise be quite open to "agreeing to disagree" with you.

In the end, you seem well-intentioned to me, and not quite realizing the effect that your words appear to be having with a subset of your readers. I have been in those shoes at a previous point in my life, so I have empathy for your situation. I would like to offer a suggestion, but I don't want to force it on you without your consent. If you would like to hear it, please let me know.

Kind Regards,

up
0 users have voted.

~OaWN

lunachickie's picture

This site is indeed a place to share and explore various thoughts, and most here are tolerant of those who disagree with them. However asking loaded questions is not a recipe to engage in a friendly discussion, especially with those who would otherwise be quite open to "agreeing to disagree" with you.

But you're a way better, much nicer writer/poster here than I am. All I can say is I disagree that it could be "well-intentioned", given the subsequent comments. Thank you for saying it all, far better than I could ever dream of...

Clapping

up
0 users have voted.

...that seems to be more prevalent on KforS but i still come away from all those proposed theories simply not knowing what's going to happen until the Democratic convention has ended or even until November. i don't use my uncertainty to create false hopes for myself. i'm simply taking a wait and see as i have during the entire primary process. none of us expected Sanders to do as well as he did but given that he did quite well while running against the Clinton political machine it stoked our hopes that maybe we were finally going to see some progressive change in the Democratic party. however, the Democratic reality (by hook or crook) bit us in the ass and they'll have none of it.

i am disappointed that Sanders didn't take it to the convention, as he said he would, but i think he just ran out of arrows in his quiver to hold out that long. the cynical side of me says it may have been just a ploy to rally his supporters all the way to the last primary and win CA. a big fuck you to AP for ruining that primary but it didn't come as a complete surprise seeing all the efforts to block Sanders' primary gains.

it probably disappoints some that Sanders will try to continue to create change within the Democratic party and with a political structure already in place, an effort that some view as futile, as opposed to trying to get a third party on par with the current duopoly. there is still a lot of 'if not now, when' in our moods while we still await whatever steps that Sanders proposes post-convention. some of us will go along with it and others won't as they see this year to be the best chance to get a third party on the debate stage. we won't know until we see the Sanders' proposals and there are simply too many unknowns right now for us to know where to coalesce to proceed with action. we're rather all over the place and trying to parse anything said by the Sanders campaign to gain some sense of direction and the next steps to take in this movement he has started. he has been especially quiet since the end of the primary election, so i'll wait and see what the new successor organizations are going to be before i decide where to direct my energy and money. until then i'm not going to expend a lot of mental energy.

as to where my vote will go in my choice for president in November, well, i haven't decided yet other than not Clinton. anything can happen between now and then that may alter that but i can't imagine Clinton/Democratic party saying or doing anything that would convince me to vote for her. i remain uncommitted toward any candidate until i see how this election season plays out. i've said in another comment that the only thing certain about the 2016 election is its uncertainty. please excuse my rambling thought bubble.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

this:

"there is still a lot of 'if not now, when' in our moods while we still await whatever steps that Sanders proposes post-convention. some of us will go along with it and others won't".

Because IMHO, for sure at the end of the day some supporters will simply just stick with "Trust" that "Bernie won't steer me wrong".

I think, however, if those 'steps that Sanders proposes' in fact DO result in a maintaining of Party "Unity" or Apparatus...DO result or steer towards a potential Dilution of Progressive momentum...

...then in fact its highly specious whether "Trusting" is the right thing to do.

Thanks for your clear feedback. Appreciated.

up
0 users have voted.

I think, however, if those 'steps that Sanders proposes' in fact DO result in a maintaining of Party "Unity" or Apparatus...DO result or steer towards a potential Dilution of Progressive momentum...

...then in fact its highly specious whether "Trusting" is the right thing to do.

...then i and many others will walk away from that 'revolution' and join another where we're more comfortable with the consensus of a different revolution. at this stage i don't see change happening within the Democratic party. they'll fight it tooth and nail and i don't have the patience to bend the arc of the Democratic party. they need to be challenged by an outside party but i will wait to see Bernie's intentions.

up
0 users have voted.

Bernie is a cult, almost a religious cult. People here state that "Bernie has NEVER lied". How do you know? They talk about faith, he's playing twelfth dimensional chess, he's a poker player with an ace up his sleeve, he hasn't conceded yet (is that why his secret service detail left?), he was threatened, he did it to keep Goldman-Sachs out of the Senate, the revolution has just begun, the revolution will take many years (that's evolution, folks), and, my favorite: Bernie's endorsing Hillary because he wants to keep her honest and get his agenda through Congress. If only five percent of this was true.

And of cognitive dissonance, GeorgeJohn is right. Bernie did come on very strong and fiery about revolution and taking his fight to the convention, only to crumple when he had other options on the table. A true leader doesn't do that, nor do they suddenly support a candidate who defines the word corruption by her actions. See, THAT is cognitive dissonance, also known as lying.

up
0 users have voted.
GeorgeJohn's picture

I just cannot get THAT one outta my Craw: he darn well knows how corrupt the person he just endorsed...actually is.

That's a hard one to rationalize. Twists folks into a Pretzel....

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

I find the irony of you telling someone else they're being pessimistic....well, ironic, hehe...

up
0 users have voted.

I think that as long as people are kept holding on to Bernie due to all these false memes streaming through social media, there is less a chance for support to shift to Jill with any momentum to make it unpleasant for Hillary. Bernie capitulated. I'm not happy to say that. But I face what I see.

up
0 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

in this essay, as well as contained in the numerous thoughtful comments.

@Everyone

I must say, in Bernie's defense, he has always been adamant--since the very beginning--that he would not run as a third party candidate, and chance throwing the election "to a right-wing Republican." (his words)

IIRC, this sentiment was included in one of his first interviews with CNN Senior Washington Correspondent Jeff Zeleny (then a NYT print reporter)--when Bernie was publicly speculating about making a run at the very beginning of 2015. As some folks know, I have posted links and excerpts from transcripts and articles to that effect, here--more than a few times.

@Lovo

Below are my three (3) points:

1) The Democratic party is corrupt. (IMO) And, yes--we need a new Party.

2) My entire Family left the Democratic Party almost 12 years ago--due to the what we perceived as deep and 'unfixable' corruption.

BTW, my DKos anniversary date of November 2004 is no accident--I headed there as soon as I changed by voter registration to nonaffiliated (Independent) in hopes of finding a so-called 'liberal oasis.'

Boy, was the joke on me! Wink

3) Voted for Dr Stein in 2012, but state voting 'access' laws have changed since then--so, we may not have that option this year.

If not, all of our Family members will vote 'strategically'--with the aim of keeping 'the Grifters' out of the White House.

@featheredsprite & GeorgeJohn

Appreciated your serious remarks about Cognitive Dissonance, as it pertains to recent events. Clearly, it is not an easy topic to discuss.

@Everyone

Seems to me that quite a bit of healing has already taken place, compared to just a day or two ago. I've particularly noticed quite a number of folks concentrating on speaking for themselves, which is very much appreciated (by me).

Namaste.

[Edit - Added italics to members' names.]

Mollie


“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption

Misty May - NMDR

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Ajaradom's picture

of the drama that is this game called politics. My conclusion is that it was all a grand scheme. You have a so much talent, knowledge, skill and ability --- there are many action and change agents that could benefit from your contributions --- I leave this video here not in judgment of you, but to inspire you, my friend!

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

You know, the folks who will vote Democrat in the general election no matter what. Here's a fun game. Ask them: If Hitler ran as a (D), would you vote for him? See if they can bring themselves to say "no."

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Alligator Ed's picture

1. We will all get a chance to vote (or not vote) for Mussolini doppelgaenger, Herr Drumpf
2. Medusa does not want to lose the Royalist vote--because they pay much better than 99ers

Herr Hitler will probably arise within the next few election cycles in our Reichstag Congress.

up
0 users have voted.

Learned helplessness is a double-bind. An endorsement requires action and agency.

In learned helplessness you don't simply concede, you give up and abandon any sense of agency. Learned helplessness would be curling up in a fetal position and simply taking whatever comes.

Bernie exercised agency. He would be denied the opportunity to bring floor votes and a speaking spot at the convention, he also might have faced retribution in the Senate if party leadership was putting a big time squeeze on him. Maybe he received some private assurances or something more than just the most "progressive platform in history", who knows. People can agree with decision or not, but what he did wasn't "learned helplessness". He made a choice.

Also, I'm sure that there were people who were shocked by Bernie's actions. But people have been saying for months that this was likely to happen -- Bernie himself has been signaling as much for a long-time. Throughout his decades long career he has always pushed things as far as he could, and then when the clock runs out, he'll cut the best deal possible.

With respect to Bernie's org he's already indicated that he will support candidates based on their adherence to a set of goals; it won't be strictly inside the tent, and as shown with House races -- Canova, Flores and others -- he's willing to back challengers who are going up against people with support from the party establishment.

up
0 users have voted.

Yes, Bernie will back progressive candidates everywhere, except when it comes to the presidential one, the one whose policies will impact our fragile democracy in the worst way possible. Also, by not fighting against voter fraud and purges at the polls, what message does Bernie send to his young supporters? "Do as I say, not as I do." Talk about cognitive dissonance.

up
0 users have voted.

His read, I'm sure, is that there is no way that a Green Party candidate is going to leapfrog into the White House in 2016 -- the party doesn't currently have a single member in either House of Congress. That's especially true for a candidate who hasn't won elected office at any level above Town Meeting Representative.

up
0 users have voted.

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).

We have seen this already, in fact: in the email Bernie sent to his supporters that touted the amazing progressive planks in the platform... if we just vote for Hillary.

I don't know WHY Bernie has decided to embrace Hillary, however reluctantly, or why he thinks that reforming the Democratic Party is the way forward after his spectacular failure to do it, or why he's acting like the platform has any power to compel the establishment (it can embarrass them, but not enough to matter), et cetera. I don't think that he was a Manchurian candidate or Trojan horse; it seems to me rather that he has been compromised or lost his way. Regardless of the reasons, he is now not selling anything I want to buy, particularly not with a Hillary presidency as the price, and his new position destroys any credibility his post-campaign organizing might have had with me.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

that just because the man "endorsed", doesn't mean YOU have to.

Use your own judgement. If someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you? No? Then don't vote for Hillary, no matter what Bernie says.

It's simple, really. We can do both--we can be thankful he got as far as he did, and we can wish him well and vote our conscience. We don't have to care WHY he did or said anything.

up
0 users have voted.

Pages