Counterpunch's Sanders statement which is difficult to rebut. An invitation to do so
Bernie Sanders has been preoccupied with convincing his followers that the Democratic Party platform is relevant, by performing his new role in the Kabuki theatre of the corporate Democrats. He is too busy acting out a supposedly important public debate over the irrelevant platform to get involved in this real and personal “servergate” example of impunity for plutocrats. Instead of leading his followers in calling for fair application of the law to his FBI-certified “extremely careless” rival, he was planning to endorse her for the Democratic Party nomination that was stolen from him, without effectively demanding party rules that would prevent current and future such election theft, and/or any other valuable bargaining chip in return
The above quotation came form a lengthy Counterpunch essay. Although there are a great number of legal citations, that essay is replete with excellent political analysis.
The point of the Counterpunch essay occurs very deep in the text, written by a skilled litigator. I confess that I have made comments, not only at variance with those above but also with my own written at various times. In fact this website is strewn with theories, condemnations, regrets, etc. written by many others. I do not criticize any of those opinions. One that resonated with me was by Steven D, who asserts Bernie is not playing chess, but is playing poker. Of course, many prefer the chess analogy. Popular recently have been the "sell-out" motifs. The above quotation does not hint at a sell-out as much as it does promoting surrendering after running a less aggressive campaign than the situation called for. I find that suggestion as very plausible. One does not take a microphone to a gun fight (unless you are a reporter) when combatting H.R.C. In fact, bringing an Abrams tank would have been appropriate.
I am not a pundit. I'm not a litigator, just an alligator (sorry, couldn't resist the pun). My hope here is to get our community members to "air this thing out" although none of us can be 100% certain. Bernie, if playing Poker, is really playing his cards so close to his vest, that perhaps only Jane really knows what is going on.
Whatever conclusions reached about Bernie's "endorsement" I oubt will alter the way people will vote in November, but I humbly solicit your opinions.
Comments
Yup, Hillary is aware that
Yup, Hillary is aware that the destructive policies she supports and has supported harm the people for the benefit of the self-interests who have made her and Bill incredibly wealthy.
And everyone among the informed is talking about how Hillary does not, in reality or any of various areas, support democracy and the people - and Bernie has the media coverage to spread his message, rather than being stripped of delegate power, shut out of the Convention and the media.
And support for the Greens has sky-rocketed and is rapidly spreading.
The Dem donors know that a vast and increasing number of aware people will NOT vote for Hillary, Biden or any other corporate candidate - and therefore vote for their own further abuse and dispossession - any longer.
How can a Hill win be made to look plausible, and will The People again let blatant electoral cheating stand as a 'done deal' to be 'fixed next time'? When so many are prepared for it and so much proof of cheating in the Dem nomination exists?
Bernie would win in a landslide if he were the nominee - otherwise, the Greens are the only viable choice moving Americans toward democracy and enabling our survival and that of life on the planet on a global basis. And people are realizing this and finally thinking out of the two-party trade-off box their corporate/billionaire overlords thought they were trapped within.
Had Bernie accepted being shut out, rather than 'endorsing' Clinton in this manner to keep his delegate status and the ability to attend the Convention and be carried by the media, would this energy and uproar be occurring?
He'd evidently sacrifice everything he has to continue the fight for his people and country and being forced to this stratagem - of apparently supporting an evil - to continue his battle for the greater good of Americans and the hope of American democracy must have formed the most agonizing decision he's ever made.
But look at the actual results.
My faith Berns forever.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Bernie Is Not Finished
From RSNews:
Did Bernie's "endorsement" help or hurt the revolution? Seems to have gotten some folks a little hot under the collar. I understand that.
Will anyone be better positioned to stop TPP in the lameduck session than Bernie? Can Bernie and Lizzie Warren filibuster the TPP in the Senate? Will he filibuster the TPP? I dunno.
Will the Green Party collapse without Bernie? I doubt it a lot. Will Bernie be a silent wallflower from here on out? I doubt it.
Get your "A" game on and show the MFers we will never surrender.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/37996-bernie-sanders-i-ha...
"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
No,he won't be doing that.
City of Philadelphia rejected his permit for FDR park.
I quoted the Philly news article within the past day or two.
The TPP bill cannot be filibustered.
That's part of what the Fast Track was about that passed and was signed into law.
Bernie can't stop the TPP if Obama chooses to bring it up for a vote and McConnell agrees to bring it up for a vote, which McConnell said he won't do. Thank goodness for McConnell.
Excellent article
that clearly lays out how Comey's and Lynch's gyrations to save Clinton are worthy of impeachment, at the very least. We can never combat the rampant corruption within our government until people are willing to call it out and pursue justice. It does not take a brilliant legal mind to understand just how badly this investigation was botched and how numerous public officials should be called to task and investigated by Congress.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
It was an excellent legal analysis, but he omitted the most
important fact. Comey has fatal conflict of interest. He works for HRC's pals at HSBC.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/07/13/fbi-director-comey-board-member-of...
We'll see if the R's have the stones to go after one of the big banks.
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020
No use crying over bungled endorsements.
It doesn't matter why he did it. The fact is he did.
Time to move on.
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?
Exactly. And I have moved on.
I'm shocked nobody has seen
the fatal flaws in the argument made in the quoted segment of the Counterpunch essay. The same flaws are present in the arguments that Bernie walked/ran from the fight, caved in, sold out, is too focused on the meaningless Democratic Party platform, brought "a microphone to a gunfight", and didn't demand enough in exchange for the damning with faint praise endorsement among many, many complaints. Folks, we're caught up in the daily news cycle and stuck on scattered bits and pieces instead of looking at the bigger picture.
I saw this up at about 9:00 CDT when there were only about six comments. I intentionally waited to post to see if anyone put it all together. Several got some important pieces but nobody has pulled it all together yet. I'm going to try to do just that in a round about way.
Politics is inevitably a struggle between competing interests and differing world views. The struggle often breaks out into war when those interests and views are as polar as they have become in this country. I'm pretty sure the struggle was as intense when I was growing up in the '50s and '60s. I wasn't nearly as aware of it as I am today but I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb saying there is little pretense of friendliness left. We're approaching all out war. The strange part is that both major parties are essentially on one side (their only argument with one another is who gets first rights to pillage) and most of the people of the US are on the other. Stranger still, many of the people have no idea such an odd arrangement exists. Many are stuck in seeing things as they once were while others are waking up due to the rise of the Teabaggers, a Great Recession, groups like OWS and BLM, and a strange fellow named Bernie Sanders. All of them sort of suggested revolutionary intentions but the Bernie guy outright claimed to be starting a political revolution.
Revolution is indeed war. War occurs when competing parties are unable to resolve their differences through political process and negotiation. Revolution is always asymmetric warfare. One side holds the power and the other must generate its own power, usually through winning the support and direct involvement of very large numbers of people. The revolution that engages in a stand up fight on other than their terms almost always loses. The US came to be in the traditional form of revolution. George Washington was its general and he lost almost every battle but won the war. He won by avoiding battles where he could be decisively engaged. The Vietnamese learned that lesson. They did lose every battle yet won the war. Political revolutions are no different. OWS was taught that lesson. BLM seems to be avoiding it so far but the cop shootings might wreck their cause. (NO! I'm not suggesting BLM is behind them.) Never go toe to toe with overwhelming power on their ground.
Bernie's success suggests that he knows the lessons. The DNC and the Clintons are a powerful foe. They hold the power to make the rules and skew the battlefield to their favor without interference. They are also unafraid to exercise their power freely and without limit. The US Army has a saying, "If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck." The fighter community says, "If you're not cheating you're not trying." Their focus is accomplishing their mission with the expenditure of the fewest resources with as few friendly casualties as possible. Bernie has been up against overwhelming power in the Dem machine and the media since the beginning. I'm not telling you anything any of you don't know.
The other side of the equation is an asymmetric fight. It has examples in the Vietnam War, Afghanistan, and Iraq. How did the NVA/Viet Cong kick our ass? How were we held up so long in Iraq and still in Afghanistan? Mostly it is because they refuse standup fights and had the will to stick to the fight as long as it took. The NVA learned the hard way during the Tet offensive. They bloodied us badly but paid dearly and learned from it. Hell, George Washington taught them how. They all fought the long war. They won over, or coerced, the population into supporting them, avoided being decisively engaged, took wins where they could get them, and were willing to go as long as it took to win by wearing down their opponent.
That's how we win a political revolution too. We can't coerce the people to support or fight for us so we have to win them over. Bernie's been doing this his entire adult life. He is a master. He has millions behind him when only fifteen months ago he did a presidential campaign announcement in a state park to a few handfuls of supporters. He did it with a message that makes sense to even those who would normally be opposed to our progressive agendas. He did it by being rigorously honest, being true to his principles, having integrity, and being true to his word. That's true to his word even when it works against him, our movement, and appears to aid our opponents. He has chosen to do that which keeps him in the fight even though it angers and confuses many of his followers. Accepting the Green Party nomination would violate his word to the Dems and would increase the likelihood of a Trump presidency. Those were both boundaries he set early on and looks to be unwilling to cross. Instead of quitting he's moving forward to continue building a political movement. He has yet to say how. I suspect that will come after the convention. The one thing that seems clear to me is that he's playing the long game he's always played since being a student activist in the '60s.
Those four points are how I look at Bernie's actions to date. I've wavered in my support a few times when I didn't understand what he was doing or why. I have no way to know what is in his heart and mind. His thoughts are his until he shares them with us. I learned another important idea from Ike. Ike was asked in an interview to share his thoughts about Stalin's intentions in Europe and the world. Those were scary times when the possibility of imminent worldwide nuclear holocaust was real. His response was that he'd learned as a military commander that it was impossible to judge a foe's intentions. He'd learned instead to determine his capabilities. From his capabilities it is possible to judge what he can do and prepare to counter them. I look at Bernie that way. I've seen what he can do. I haven't seen him deviate from his principles, his word, or any signs of a lack of integrity or resolve. Any fears I have that he might surrender to the darkness are mine alone. I suggest yours are as well.
That's about it. When I was thinking about writing this post there were a few things that popped into my head that I'd like to share even though I discarded them from my essay. I continue to see essays and comments from those who want Bernie to play as dirty and be as negative as the Clinton machine. Can anyone see the flaw in that thinking? He doesn't have the vast experience of the Clinton gang so probably would make a very poor rat fucker although there are some damned fine ones for hire. I think the Clintons would out bid him though. The big flaw is that if he went that route then he would no longer be Bernie. He'd be just another shit heel politician whose only motive was winning for himself. Do I need to point out that this is the exact opposite of the message that has brought out millions for Bernie?
On a grander scale it's that self interested win at all costs mindset that I see as the biggest threat to our politics and our country. I think it infects all of us to some extent. I won't say anything more and may save it for an essay but I'd like for anyone reading this to think it over.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
so glad to see the such awesome contributors...
...from the blogosphere congregating here on C99. it reminds me of the early days of DK. the brilliant diaries that were posted often left me awestruck to all the wisdom of the members in politics, science, history, etc. it was wonderful but that's my past now.
Excellent essay about the art of politics = art of war.
vtcc73, thank you for a masterful commentary. Many of the comments preceding yours have been well-considered and valuable. I believe that your analysis is the most comprehensive summation in understanding the "sell-out", "surrender" or hypocrisy theories bandied about.
My contention is that politics is war. In fact I wrote a diary on DK with that title. Your analyses (plural) in fact deal with war explicitly as well as implicitly. The points adduced could (and probably do) trace their roots to the writings of Sun Tzu over two millennia ago--and I believe your points correctly derive from the masterful teaching but applied on a modern scale.
I'm not a good poker player but I like the analysis of poker as being a long game: playing each hand to advantage, winning some, losing some; marshalling resources as long as possible so as to keep in the game until you win.
Losing every battle but winning the war was ably demonstrated, as noted, by both George Washington and the NVA. Not avoiding "decisive engagements" at any time was a self-destructive element in Bushido leading to Japanese defeat. Obviously, as pointed out here, the successes by inferior forces avoid decisive engagements. Modern examples as you indicate include Afghanistan but also ISIS. The Democratic Convention, viewed as a decisive engagement, which it would surely become, if Bernie made a stand-or-fall decision at that time could be near ruinous [many reasons for that] including a Pyrrhic victory for the Democratic party as a whole.
As was made clear by vtcc73, we the people cannot win the battle(s) fighting the enemy's war. Yet, no government can survive the mass resistance of its populace. As noted earlier, Bernie is playing his cards so close to the vest that perhaps only Jane knows what he plans.
Magnifying the "many against the few" scenario further, which may not be in Bernie's playbook, would be a truly concerted mass movement to defeat the system from without "their" system. Such a strategy will have casualties and suffering. Consider a national strike of all non-emergency workers in the U.S. Certain segments of the populace, the impoverished, would be disproportionately more injured than the rest. Yet they are already suffering and are scheduled to suffer even more under the next regime, whether D or R.
"I'm shocked nobody has seen" is quite valuable, giving perspective not only on how Bernie's intentions were, but also on continuing the post-Bernie Revolution. The pace of this revolution is as yet unknown. undeniably Occupy Wall Street, was the modern day equivalent of the first shot at Bunker Hill. They are not equal but the meanings are similar. Let us wait. Let us wait until the Democratic Convention. Let us wait till November. Vote Blue, Red, Green, or not at all--this is but a continuation of a revolution--currently peaceful--yet the scent of blood, quite faint now, is in the air.
Disagree with the above from the standpoint of war and tactics.
(quotes below are from the art of war)
Where the Washington analogy falls flat can be summed up by one word. Commitment. A general or leader (If we wish to consider Bernie that for purpose of metaphor) Must be committed to the plan once the plan is in place, and more to the point his army MUST believe in him as much as the plan.
How would you have felt for instance if in the middle of the winter at Valley Forge Washington came back after tea and biscuits with the Brits and said. "I know I've been whipping us into shape to fight them all, you're tired, cold, hungry, ready to quit. So I think if we work with the king a bit we can iron out our differences, we just have to work within the system to change those issues we have. I'm sure if we stop fighting we can find other ways to hold him accountable."
And if Bernie is holding his cards close, again this is disaster, an army who is marched to the doorstep (Philly) but then left without direction or a leader is an army that no matter how large can easily be crushed by the army with direction and leadership. which say what you will about Hillary, she has that with powerful backing in the form of the DNC and the party.
[03.13] A general is the safeguard of the nation. When this support is in place, the nation will be strong. When this support is not in place, the nation will not be strong.
[03.14] There are three ways the ruler can bring difficulty to the army: (1) To order an advance when not realizing the army is in no position to advance, or to order a withdrawal when not realizing the army is in no position to withdraw. This is called entangling the army.
[03.15] (2) By not knowing the army's matters, and administering the army the same as administering civil matters, the officers and troops will be confused.
[03.16] (3) By not knowing the army's calculations, and taking command of the army, the officers and troops will be hesitant.
[03.17] When the army is confused and hesitant, the neighboring rulers will take advantage. This is called a confused and hesitant army leading another to victory.
And it's an army that fractures, as we see right now. With half blowing up Jill Stein's FB page and donations, and half trying to sit here and (were i to be blunt) playing apologist games, burnishing Bernie's halo, and saying he's playing the long game cause he didn't have a choice. He had to do it to get into the hall so to speak. Him and his delegates. We just have to keep fighting!
[02.06] When weapons are blunted and ferocity diminished, strength exhausted and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.
[02.07] Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
[02.08] Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted. No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.
[02.09] Therefore, if one is not fully cognizant of the dangers inherent in doing battle, one cannot fully know the benefits of doing battle.
I feel that last line holds true as well here, I don't think Bernie realized what he was getting himself in for. It's easier to shout and be right to an empty senate chamber, it's a whole lot different when suddenly you have the power to take on those against you. I'm still seething that he didn't.
The second part of that is also that if he did it to get in then again as a "general" he failed, because he didn't control the field of battle. He let the enemy dictate the terms of the engagement, right down to his speaking slot, prime time or not it's meaningless because he already ceded the field.
And it violates basically every single tenet of both the art of war and warfare in general. You do not attack exactly where the enemy is strongest, and exactly where they expect you to be. You said it right here yourself Ed. Bernie's own personal Bushido is leading to this defeat. His honor to keep the promise to support in the end, no matter how much the party has treated him like crap, is leading him to a course that spells disaster for the left and for any chance of real progressive change.
It's the part that drives me right up the wall too I'll admit, to the point of blowing up with my...ahem "Childish vitriol" as others have phrased it. The left doesn't seem to get it. How many times does Lucy have to snatch that damn football before we stop laboring under the belief that the Democrats can be worked with, and the system will be changed? It can't be, and again this is where we see failure in tactics, the party is the walled city we're trying to lay siege too.
[03.03] Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city.
[03.04] Laying siege to a city is only done when other options are not available.
[03.07] If the general cannot control his temper and sends troops to swarm the walls, one third of them will be killed, and the city will still not be taken. This is the kind of calamity when laying siege to a walled city.
[03.08] Therefore, one who is skilled in warfare principles subdues the enemy without doing battle, takes the enemy's walled city without attacking, and overthrows the enemy quickly, without protracted warfare.
I'll point out again that while some of us are going after the city what has Shill and the DNC been doing? Attacking the others, and has done a pretty good job of subduing the left once more in terms of victory this time (though the future is a matter of debate) Even if Bernie is or isn't as I put it elsewhere a sheepdog. Right now the forces against TPTB are a mix of demoralized, confused, pissed off, defecting to "greener" pastures, and unsure who to trust. And I'm sorry if people don't want to hear it minus the candy coating, but the blame for that lies right at Bernie's feet in shades of George B McCellan if you want to go a bit more modern. And a failure to (again) commit your forces and yourself to the battle.
His motives could be pure as virgin snow or come from the 9th circle of hell it doesn't matter. He abdicated the position of leadership right when it appears the risk finally got too great, and you don't get to lead a movement into battle then turn around and say, "Oh sorry what I meant is we have to get that guy over there instead!" and not expect some blowback. Or an army going "Wtf mate?"
[08.11] Therefore, there are five dangerous traits of a general: He who is reckless can be killed.
[08.12] He who is cowardly can be captured.
[08.13] He who is quick tempered can be insulted.
[08.14] He who is moral can be shamed.
[08.15] He who is fond of the people can be worried.
[08.16] These five traits are faults in a general, and are disastrous in warfare. The army's destruction, and the death of the general are due to these five dangerous traits. They must be examined.
Pay attention to those last two, and tell me who it sounds like also.
Regardless we're still playing the same game by their rules, and until we stop doing that nothing will change. As another commenter here put it (paraphrasing) "Talk to me when you're ready to burn the system down."
I will add this on a personal note.
Yes I think he was a sheepdog.
Yes I think we got played again.
And yes I think anyone who joins any future organization Sanders does set up within the party is a fool who deserves to be told "Enjoy your DNC branded veal pen."
Because once trust is gone, regardless of why you did it. You don't get it back.
See, their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be.
-The Joker-
For your further consideration
is another tenet of the military: No plan ever survives first contact. Sticking to a flawed plan or one based on incomplete information is generally a lost cause. Being so committed to a plan as to unable or unwilling to change with new information is no different from a rock in conflict with a sledge hammer. Unable to move it will be destroyed unless it is able to somehow withstand the blows. It's flaw is immobility that no plan can overcome. But enough of Sun Tsu. There is definitely wisdom in his writing but I'm more a COL John Boyd fan.
My orientation is practical experience from a long life and the fortunate exposure to some outstanding leaders. Everything in my experience shouts that Bernie is an incredible leader. His record of working with nearly every faction in our political system to achieve solidly progressive goals and helping average people is unprecedented in modern America. He's a brilliant political tactician who has the ability to adapt and achieve. Part of his agility is his adherence to principle rather than ideology, identity politics, or pet methods. You obviously disagree but I'll follow someone with a long consistent record of achievement regardless of my disappointment with one choice he makes. I do not know why he chose the timing or why of his damning with faint praise endorsement. I can only accept his judgment until he chooses to tell us. I don't expect him to do so. He evidently feels his path is the one that is required by his mission. There have been enough revelations from those with much more knowledge than either of us suggesting this was a tactical change of direction to ensure he can remain in the fight. We cannot achieve anything if we are out of the fight. I'll stick with his lead and reassess as needed. My choice is not a matter of blind trust or cult of personality but is trust based on a long record of trustworthy actions. It is trust not so fragile that one instance of action I do not have sufficient information to analyze can be rationalized to become distrust.
From me to you Dragonkat, I am sorry you have chosen a rigid black and white way to look at Bernie. I've been known to take stances like yours but never to my benefit. That's not how life works. Every subject or issue has a continuum of solutions that cannot be reduced to a choice between one extreme or the other. With us or against us thinking is certain to ensure our lives are lived with few friends/allies but many opponents. We can't "burn it down" every time life goes in a direction we dislike. It's your choice and your life to live. I hope you find a different path without enduring too much pain.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
Thank you
for the kind words AE. I don't necessarily deserve them. I've always had a knack for looking at things from several different perspectives and occasionally seeing things that surprise me. The dog piling on Bernie, Liz Warren, Robert Reich, and several other usually solid progressive records (Reich wasn't a favorite as Labor Secretary but he's recently shown a solid progressive economic side) bothers me greatly. The thinking I see is the plain vanilla "with us or against us" polar style. I expect it out of conservatives and it is disheartening from progressives. Then again, lost expectation often lead to anger and angry people never think clearly.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
In the revolution EVERYONE has a role to play... From trump to
The people now calling Bernie a sell out. Each role is important to the success of this revolution... IMHO one of the important roles is the one people who are outraged at Bernie play.
The status quo truly believed this was ALL about Bernie... Saw him as a pied piper able to wave a wand and get 13 million progressives to become her supporters ... That this ISNT happening is what keeps the party worried and moving left of center...
In order for Bernie to remain relevant during the election cycle Bernie had to SHOW the party just how angry the electorate really is and what better way to do that then to endorse her and watch as WE ignored his endorsement.
NOW we need to show the her campaign that we will still show up for Bernie as long as HE continues to push the ISSUES we support. But if he and OUR issues are pushed to the side... OUR response will be....
So long and thanks for all the fish.
so I suggest we each advocate FOR our preferred candidate be it Jill, Bernie of (sigh) Her but we ALL continue to speak forcefully about the Issues we collectively make lines in the sand.
United WE are stronger then The party... Some of us will continue to work on the inside, some of us must continue to work on the outside... But we MUST not splinter into factions that fight each other .. If we do that (again) we ALL lose.
(Smile)
Orwell was an optimist
promises
Bernie is know for his honesty. His promise to keep on fighting even through the convention was a broken promise. This is why people are seeing him as just another sellout.
Power hard-earned then
discarded in a moment is a wasted fight. It demoralizes one's troops and sends them, bitter, to lesser leaders and less likely to join in another fight.
What's to become of Bernie's Millennials? Many will go to Jill Stein, an intellectually-gifted politician who is weak on strategy and has virtually zero name recognition. She still appears on only 50% of state ballots. Trump? Perhaps. Many will go with Her because Bernie has. But I still think that had Bernie accepted Jill's invite to run as prez with the Greens, his name recognition plus her organizational groundwork would have stopped the Clinton machine. Trump would have won and progressives would have a third party with name recognition and an organized structure. Many here have said that Bernie exposed DNC and Clinton lies and corruption. So why did he go ahead and help her cover it all up by endorsing Her? Can anyone come up with a straight answer?
Pages